Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

Executions (First World War)

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: It is my privilege to present to this honourable House a petition signed by more than 25,000 people, in particular Janet Booth, who is the granddaughter of Harry Farr of the West Yorkshire Regiment, Allan Harris, the nephew of Private Louis Harris of the West Yorkshire Regiment and Grace Shoan, niece of Private Bertie McCubbin of the Sherwood Foresters.
Those individuals, together with the other 25,000 petitioners, wish to draw the House's attention to the fact that, in the great war of 1914–19, more than 300 soldiers of the British empire were executed at dawn by firing squad, having been found guilty of offences that included cowardice, desertion, disobedience, sleeping at post, throwing away arms and striking a superior officer.
The petitioners believe that those men were denied fair trials in accordance with the rules of natural justice and note that documents now available prove that many were suffering from sickness and trauma. They say:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House introduce legislation to grant posthumous pardons to each of these men and that their names shall be included in all official records and memorials to the esteemed soldiers of the Empire Forces who fought bravely and made the ultimate sacrifice for their country, in the cause of freedom and justice.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Ex-service People

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I beg to move,
That this House, mindful of the increasing needs of the United Kingdom's ageing ex-service population and the many problems of younger members of the ex-service community in direct consequence of "Options for Change", considers that there is now a pressing need for a sub-Department of Ex-Service Affairs within an existing Ministry and with a designated Minister to be responsible, as the only fundamental and long-term solution for the care and welfare of ex-service people and their dependants; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government now to respond positively to the Royal British Legion's urgent call for a sub-department to be established.
It is a privilege and an honour to present this motion, the principal author of which is my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and his friends in the Royal British Legion. I am pleased to declare that I am an associate member of the legion.
The motion calls for the appointment of a Minister with special responsibilities to look after the interests of ex-service men and women. It draws attention to the care that those men and women, who gave diligent, gallant and brave service to this country in our armed forces for many years, now need. It is a timely request. I know that other hon. Members have sought to draw attention to the need for such a Minister, and I look forward to hearing them later.
My constituency is rich in organisations that endeavour to promote and protect the interests of ex-service people. I hope that I will be forgiven for referring to Andy Finn and Charles Mercer of my local branch of the Royal Naval Association; John Webb and John Bright of the Royal British Legion; and Councillor Sid Joslin of the Royal Air Forces Association, who have all encouraged me to promote the motion this morning.
Many more hon. Members would have liked to be present this morning. In fairness to them, it should be recorded that Friday is an extraordinarily difficult day for hon. Members to be in the House, as many have long-standing constituency interests. I am anxious that anyone who reads the Official Report should understand that many hon. Members from both sides of the House wish to be associated with the motion, although unable to be here today. They will no doubt tell the Prime Minister in their own way, either by writing or informally, that they agree that it is time that a Minister dedicated to the interests of ex-service people was appointed.
At school, I was a dilatory pupil, in some ways unhappy. Every week, one of our tutors would insist that we learn some lines of Hilaire Belloc, which did not stimulate me a bit, and I was ritually admonished, much to my embarrassment and discomfiture.
But on one occasion he set us some lines of Sir Winston Churchill. Unbeknown to him, I had studied the speeches of Sir Winston Churchill. Indeed, I knew them rather well. When he came in the classroom hoping to do his usual stuff and cause me discomfiture, he called me to the front and said, "Proceed, Mackinlay." To his surprise and a round of applause from my fellow pupils, I recited the lines which, if the House will allow me, I shall quote again this morning:
The gratitude of every home in our island, in the Empire and, indeed, throughout the world—except in the abodes of the guilty—goes out to the British airmen who, undaunted by the odds, unwearied in their constant challenge and mortal danger, are


turning the tide of this war by their prowess and devotion. Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.
Although those words are jealously guarded as a memorial to the gallant fighters of the Royal Air Force, half a century on they could refer to a larger number of people. The gratitude of many that is owed to the few must mean my generation, who were born after the second world war and are the beneficiaries of the sacrifice of millions of men and women during the great conflict of 1939 to 1945. "The few" are my parents' generation, not just RAF pilots but all those who fought in all the theatres of war in the cause of justice and freedom.
This motion is addressed primarily on behalf of, but not exclusively to, those millions of people. If the Government are persuaded to appoint such a Minister, he or she will be responsible for those people. Ex-service men and women who served in previous conflicts need the support of a dedicated Minister. A few thousand soldiers who served in the great war are still alive, as are many of the widows of those who served.

Mr. Harry Greenway: rose—

Mr. Oliver Heald: rose—

Mr. Mackinlay: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Ealing, North first.

Mr. Greenway: The hon. Gentleman is most generous, and I congratulate him on initiating this debate. He was right to recite the superb words of Sir Winston Churchill in the greatest speech in the history of this land, but he should not forget the value of Hilaire Belloc. Perhaps we can have a word about that afterwards.
Sir Winston Churchill spoke of "the few". The central point is that those few are a diminishing band. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will give a friendly nod in favour of the motion. The newly appointed Minister will have a diminishing responsibility, but it should be discharged. All my British Legion friends—I am vice-president of the Greenford branch of the Royal British Legion and its Royal Naval section—strongly support what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I am sure that the House will support it.

Mr. Mackinlay: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He and I have often spoken privately about our mutual interest in Polish ex-service men, of whom he represents a large number. It is important to recall that about one in seven of the German aircraft shot down over London were shot down by brave Polish pilots, some of whom still reside in the United Kingdom, having made it their home.
Although they are now in the evening of life with their British grandchildren around them, in the intervening 50 years their interests have not always been satisfactorily safeguarded. For instance, whereas other British service men have had extensive opportunities to appeal against refusals for benefits, it has been much more difficult for Polish ex-service men to do so.
If a Minister were appointed, he or she could deal with the interests of Polish ex-service men who are now inextricably bound up with the United Kingdom, having made it their home. That group must not be forgotten. A debate like this could inadvertently offend other groups by not referring to them, but I acknowledge the debt of

gratitude which this country owes to the Polish ex-service men who fought alongside colleagues in the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Heald: Although we all agree that "the few" gave much service to this country, will the hon. Gentleman explain the purpose of a new Minister? Existing ministries already deal with housing and employment, and war pensions are dealt with by a separate Department. What would a new Minister do?

Mr. Mackinlay: The hon. Gentleman is somewhat impatient. I am just warming up, although some hon. Members will be anxious about the volume of papers that I have with me. I shall deal with the matter as swiftly as I can, and come to the central issue of the Minister in a few moments. The hon. Gentleman prompts me to say that the United Kingdom is the exception among our principal allies in not having a Minister directly charged with promoting the interests of ex-service people. The United States has a considerable veterans' organisation. As recently as 1989, President Bush raised the post to the level of Cabinet Secretary, and that importance has been sustained by President Clinton.

Mr. Heald: I am sorry to trespass on the hon. Gentleman's good will, but the position in America is different. There, the Veterans Administration deals with the health service for veterans and is the only means of delivering health care to veterans. This country has a national health service, so such a Minister is not needed.

Mr. Mackinlay: The hon. Gentleman is impatient, and should wait to hear me out. It is true that, in America, the Veterans Administration deals with health and welfare, but not exclusively—it promotes the wider interests of ex-service people and their dependants, who are entitled to a voice. They are people who have made great sacrifices.
I notice that the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) is of my generation—he and I should tread cautiously—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is younger."] In that case, he should tread even more cautiously when pontificating on the subject.
I wish to deal with the important subject of comparable Ministers in other countries.

Mrs. Barbara Roche: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I want to support him and ask for his comments. The call for a Minister is warmly supported by the Royal British Legion branches. My constituency of Hornsey and Wood Green is privileged to have three branches: Muswell Hill, Hornsey and Wood Green, and I am proud to be an associate member of the legion. I received a letter from the Wood Green branch of the Royal British Legion this week and I should like my hon. Friend's views on it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. This is an intervention. I am sure that the hon. Lady can catch my eye later, but it is not appropriate to quote from a letter in an intervention.

Mr. Mackinlay: I shall look forward to reading my hon. Friend's letter, and will write to her branch of the Royal British Legion to say how much I appreciate its support for my motion.

Mrs. Roche: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Mackinlay: I think that this will have to be the last time that I give way for a wee while.

Mrs. Roche: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Lady is not about to quote from a letter in her intervention.

Mrs. Roche: Absolutely not. I wanted to emphasise that British Legion branches in my constituency and elsewhere are stating that it is particularly hard for them at this difficult time and it is even more important that there should be a Minister to meet their needs. We should take the point that the British Legion makes, which I am sure will have been reinforced by letters to many hon. Members.

Mr. Mackinlay: I want to pick up the theme of what happens in other allied countries, and mention Canada and Australia. However, before I do so, I wish to stress that, in the United States and other countries, the need exists for a Minister who can cut through red tape in Whitehall, and in other countries' equivalent of Whitehall, to assist the ex-service organisations that campaign for individual and collective interests.
One of the arguments forcibly advanced by the Royal British Legion and other ex-service organisations is that Whitehall has a plethora of agencies—about 17 or 18—and a host of Departments and Ministers with which they have to deal to obtain redress for their members. We want to break through that bureaucracy, and a designated Minister could do that—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North must contain himself.
There are plenty of precedents in Whitehall. We have had a Minister for Sport for some time, but for the first decade or more of the post's existence, there was no official portfolio. The portfolio was originally held by a junior Minister in the former Ministry of Housing and Local Government, then the Department of the Environment, then the Department of Education and Science. It now resides in the tranquil waters of the National Heritage Department. I was told just the other evening that there are now red dispatch boxes with the words "Minister for Sport" on them.
Before the formal post of Minister for Sport existed, various Prime Ministers said that a Minister would be given responsibility for promoting sport and would intervene in Departments and agencies to that end. That worked well and, after a time, the Minister for Sport became a designated post.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his speech. I have great sympathy for the motion. The Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire branch of the British Legion has made many representations to me expressing support for the motion.
Could the hon. Gentleman help me to understand the concept of the Minister? At present, the responsibility for service men's affairs is spread across different Departments that specialise in individual problems. I fear that, if the affairs are run through one Minister, bottlenecks and delays may occur. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can reassure me that that will not be the case.
I would appreciate it if the hon. Gentleman would also touch on the subject of cost. I should not want the

excessive costs of a new Minister to take funds from other Departments that already deal with ex-service men's affairs.

Mr. Mackinlay: The hon. Lady has made three points. I do not think that cost should be of paramount importance when considering ex-service men and women, but in any event I believe that the post will provide a marginal saving. Many costs are incurred by voluntary organisations and Government Departments because the responsibility is fractured between various Government Departments and agencies.
A dedicated Minister would be able to cut through the red tape and diminish costs and time, which is vital to people in the evening of life or who are in pain and discomfort. Costs should not be of paramount importance, but, as the hon. Lady has raised the subject, I have to say that I believe that a dedicated Minister would probably bring savings. I believe that I have covered the point that the hon. Lady made about efficiency.
When I tabled the motion, I received an unsolicited telephone call from the office of the Government's Chief Whip. I was asked which Minister I thought should reply to the debate. I was a little surprised by the request, and said that I thought that the Minister should come from the Ministry of Defence. The clerk replied that a representative from the Ministry of Defence had already stated that it was not its responsibility to reply.
I said that the only person who could help was the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister had previously been asked about the subject by a number of hon. Members, including myself. The Prime Minister said—in fairness to the present Prime Minister, it was also said by his predecessors—that the matter was adequately dealt across a range of Departments and Ministers. That story shows that it is not clear who should have responsibility for ex-service people's affairs.
I am pleased to see that good sense has prevailed and there is a distinguished Minister on the Treasury Bench this morning—the Minister of State for Defence Procurement—who I know will give us the benefit of his views later. The Minister is always kind and courteous, and I know that he takes a great interest in the subject.
However, he is a little hindered, as he cannot deliver the goods this morning. If the mood of the House is in favour of at least asking the Prime Minister to reconsider the subject, I hope that he will pass on that fact at an early opportunity next week, probably in advance of the expected Government reshuffle. I hope that he will tell the Prime Minister that he should consider the subject.
The British Legion has said that its members are frustrated. I have three examples of the sort of problems encountered in the agencies in Whitehall and elsewhere. One ex-service man was medically discharged, suffering from a psychiatric problem—he had been disabled by a toxic aerosol that poisoned him during an exercise in Canada. As a result, he had to contact the Department of Social Security to claim a war pension, and the Benefits Agency to claim income support and disabled living allowance. He probably has further entitlements under the war pension scheme that the British Legion need to pursue on his behalf. He has been advised to claim sickness benefit from his local benefits agency, which should have been awarded to him on his discharge from the Army. However, it was not until he received the advice of the British Legion that the matter was pursued on his behalf.
A former royal marine eventually received a war pension of 20 per cent. for noise-induced hearing loss. When he contacted the legion, it was revealed that he was also suffering injuries to his knees and had osteoarthritis in other parts of his body. Because the British Legion championed his interests, he is now in receipt of a 90 per cent. war pension. A war pensioner's mobility supplement is also being considered, along with a constant attendance allowance. He has also received a grant from the DSS to enable him to purchase a special chair under the home adaptations grant scheme for war pensioners.
However, one wonders what would have happened if he had not come into contact with the legion, and whether he could have achieved these benefits much earlier had there been a dedicated Minister who was alive to his interests. If he had gone to the legion in those circumstances, it would have had to bang on the door of only one Ministry.
The final case concerns a man who had given 28 years' service in the forces. He left with no form of discharge procedure or medical board, but it was known that he had a hearing disability. On leaving the service, he was put in touch with the war pensions directorate, through the local DSS office, and was ultimately given a gratuity for noise-induced deafness, which it was accepted he had incurred during his years of service.
Following legal advice, he got a 30 per cent. war pension, although his legal costs were considerable. As a former service man, he had no knowledge of civil systems; he was fortunate to achieve that much, but without the advice of the legion he would never have got that far. The legion has now been able to obtain more for him, including a 50 per cent. war pension and an allowance for a lowered standard of occupation.
This again shows the need for a central point where information would be available to help former service people with their needs.
I return to the question of what happens elsewhere. I was pleased yesterday to receive some information from Australia, from the Veterans Affairs Minister, Mr. Con Sciacca, who says that his portfolio is in the Department of Defence. Similarly, our colleagues in the Canadian Parliament have two Ministers dedicated to veterans affairs, with Privy Council status. So there are easy comparisons to be made with other Westminster-style constitutions. Those Ministers fulfil all the duties that I have tried to outline this morning.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Royal British Legion in Burnley thinks that we lag not only behind our allies but also, tragically, behind some of our former enemies? That causes the legion even more distress.

Mr. Mackinlay: Absolutely. When preparing for this morning's debate, I studied an amendment once tabled by the former Member for Hastings and Rye, Mr. Ken Warren—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sir Ken Warren."] Yes, of parachutist fame, I believe. His amendment drew attention to the fact that the pensions and benefits paid to former service people and widows in Germany and Japan were far superior to those paid here. I therefore endorse what my hon. Friend says.
When I go the Library to ask how many early-day motions relating to former service people have been tabled by hon. Members, I realise how many of them, on both sides of the House, take an interest.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his initiative, which I know is much appreciated by members of the Royal British Legion. I know that he will be pleased to learn the position of the official Opposition on this. We accept the need for much greater co-ordination between the parts of Whitehall that impact on the needs of our service men and women, and we are actively considering setting up a special unit in the MOD to look after their needs.

Mr. Mackinlay: That is excellent news. In a way, I am addressing my remarks today to the Prime Minister, but there could be a change of Government at some stage, and I hope that the leader of a Labour Administration would act on what I have said. In any event I am greatly encouraged by my hon. Friend's remarks. Meanwhile, I invite hon. Members to study carefully some of the early-day motions to which I have referred.
I suspect that the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) may want to mention this subject later, but I was recently privileged to visit Ards borough council in Northern Ireland, where I made many friends in the community. Recently, the council was invited by the Belgian authorities to send some veterans this autumn to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the liberation of a number of Belgian towns—a liberation effected chiefly by a Polish contingent and regiments from Northern Ireland. There was cross-party support in Ards borough council to pay for the veterans' trip, and the hospitality in Belgium was to be paid for by the Belgian authorities.
Unfortunately, the Northern Ireland district auditor waved his red card, so to speak, and said that he would not approve of the expenditure. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) and I have written to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about the matter. I hope that it can be resolved, but it goes to show that there is an awful lot of red tape. There is always some Blimp who can frustrate things. A Ministry of the type that I propose would provide a one-stop shop for Ards borough council and the other veterans' organisations in Northern Ireland—and for hon. Members who want such cases sorted out. What has happened to Ards was clearly absurd, and it must be remedied with dispatch.
Last week, a report was published by an organisation known as Crisis. Entitled "Working for Homeless People", it drew attention to the plight of the homeless in London. There has been some dispute about the report's figures, which suggested that as many as one in four single homeless people in London were former service men.
I do not want to argue the statistics this morning; it is irrelevant whether one in four or one in six is the operative figure. But it is a demonstrable fact that a high proportion of these people are former service men. My anxiety is prompted by the fact that, with the downsizing of our armed forces and all the implications of "Options for Change", many men and women who joined the armed forces as adolescents and to whom the services have been family and friend will, for the first time in their lives, find themselves alone, without homes or companionship.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Speaking as a vice-president of Crisis, formerly known as


Crisis at Christmas, can I assure my hon. Friend and the whole House that the report to which he referred was at once carefully researched and well documented? It was also looked at very carefully and with some concern by the former service community and its organisations.

Mr. Mackinlay: Absolutely right. We all have a duty to be alive to the interests of service men and women, and to safeguard those interests when they leave the armed forces, to ensure that homelessness among this group does not grow. We must bring our energies and resources to bear to ensure that the number of homeless former service men and women is reduced.

Mr. John Sykes: I am with the hon. Gentleman on that point, and wish to raise an issue of profound importance to one of my constituents. With your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to speak about it in this intervention.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair cannot allow that indulgence. There is plenty of time for proper contributions. Interventions should be short and to the point. No quotations or long examples should be given.

Mr. Sykes: I will attempt to make my intervention as short as possible. It concerns an RAF widow whose husband, a sergeant, died after 20 years' service to his country. She and her children are about to be thrown on the street because, under the Ministry of Defence system, an ex-service man's widow has no right to occupy or buy the home. However, four MOD civil servants have exercised their rights on the same estate.
Will the hon. Gentleman compare that with the astronomical sums awarded to ex-service women who got themselves pregnant, and the fact that some individuals in the MOD seem concerned to prosecute Falklands service men who fought for their country? Is that not a scandalous state of affairs?

Mr. Mackinlay: If we had a Minister for ex-service affairs, the hon. Member would have a focal point to allow him to raise that issue. There is no Question Time dedicated to such matters, either. Although I do not go along with the broad thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, he should have the right to raise the matter in the House with an appropriate Minister at Question Time. The hon. Gentleman could then argue his corner. As sure as night turns into day, the parliamentary calendar would then include a half-day—I hope, a whole day—each year to debate ex-service issues.
I give way to the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer), who gave service to his country in the armed forces.

Sir Jim Spicer: The hon. Gentleman said that homeless ex-service people had been part of a family, and that it was tragic that they should thereafter become homeless. The hon. Gentleman should never forget that they remain part of that family after they leave it.
I can talk only about airborne forces, but I know of one case of an ex-guardsman. The first port of call for anyone who has left the services with a problem must be the family—back to the regiment and through it, to the Royal British Legion. It follows that he will be directed by the legion and his regimental association to the right help. If I have dealt with one case in the past 20 years, I have dealt with 30 or

40 ex-parachutists who came to me as their first port of call. Safety nets exist, but those who drop through them ought to know—and they do know before they leave the services—that they exist.

Mr. Mackinlay: I absolutely agree, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman's intervention will attract attention. There is a problem with communicating with people, who, by definition, are lonely and have no fixed abode. I know that every right hon. and hon. Member would take the same initiative as the hon. Gentleman, in steering ex-service people in emotional, physical or financial difficulty towards their former regiment or equivalent Royal Air Force or Royal Navy unit and on to the appropriate ex-service organisation.
Incidentally, I stress that all my comments include our gallant friends who served in conflicts in the Merchant Navy. They are definitely included—as are, to some extent, members of other uniformed services who took part in the 1939–45 war effort in particular.
Right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House have signed early-day motions and pressed Ministers in respect of former prisoners of war. Lord Braine, the former Member of Parliament for Castle Point, was vigorous and vocal on behalf of people who were incarcerated in Japanese prisoner of war camps, who he considers have not received justice or a proper remedy. I was pleased to support a related early-day motion tabled in the last session by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Godsiff), which attracted support from all parts of the House.
One of my constituents, John Stevens, served on HMS Gloucester, which was sunk in the battle of Crete. He was one of the few survivors, and was marched across central Europe to somewhere in Poland, where he claims—I believe with some legitimacy—that he was not treated in accordance with the Geneva convention. He was required by the Farben chemical corporation, along with the Hitler regime, to help the German war machine, contrary to the convention's provisions. He suffered physical and emotional hardship, and has tried to pursue his case and that of his colleagues with various Government Departments.
Part of the problem for people engaged in such campaigns is that they do not have a one-stop shop or a Minister who will listen. I am not necessarily saying that the Minister would agree with all such campaigns and claims, but it is difficult to get such problems examined at a senior level in Whitehall.
A similar situation exists in respect of British nuclear test veterans. By coincidence, their chairman—a Paisley councilor—is named Ken McGinley. I am sure that they would want to be mentioned in this debate, because they are frustrated by their inability to have someone at senior level acknowledge their case and properly consider their claim for compensation.
I was privileged to join a number of hon. Members at the deeply moving ceremonies in Normandy a few weeks ago. I place on record my congratulations to the Minister in another place, Viscount Cranborne, and his colleagues on the way in which those ceremonies were conducted. They were profoundly moving, and something that I will always remember.
Previously, there was misunderstanding—I apportion no blame—between some individuals in Whitehall and ex-service organisations. It all turned out right on the day,


but that initial misunderstanding could have been avoided if there had been a veterans Minister with responsibility for service affairs. He or she would have been sensitive from the outset to the aspirations and interests of ex-service people.
Concern has been expressed on both sides of the House about the reduced grant to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. I believe that the Government have seen the amber light—frankly, right hon. and hon. Members do not like that cut. We were told by the Secretary of State for Defence that the commission can absorb that cut, and that it will not create any problems. However, that situation should be watched.
If there were someone in Whitehall conscious of such matters, that cut might not have been made, and the Government could be counselled against making any further cuts in a service that is much valued and appreciated by ex-service men and women, their widows and dependants, and people generally who are proud of this country and of the service that it was given in years past by brave service men.
I am disappointed that the Government failed to recommend to the sovereign that an official medal be struck and awarded for the millions of people who did national service. The Royal British Legion has produced its own fine medal, but ex-national service men and women who now serve in the various uniformed services—police, ambulance and fire brigade—are not, strictly speaking, permitted to wear the legion medal on their uniforms on appropriate occasions.
That is a pity; it also strikes me as daft and insensitive. Why on earth should we not recognise people who are proud of having done national service? They may not all have been up to their necks in muck and bullets, but they did their best, and they are proud of it. I hope that the Minister will think again, because millions of ex-national service men would be profoundly appreciative.
I apologise for having spoken at some length, but I have tried to give way to interventions and to reassure people that I am arguing not for a Ministry, but for a Minister. I do not care whether the Minister concerned is actually in the Ministry of Defence, perhaps also charged with buying dreadnoughts, in the Department of Social Security perhaps also issuing giro cheques or in the Privy Council Office in Downing street.
That does not matter; what we want is a Minister for veterans or ex-service men and women, and I suspect that, once appointed, such a Minister would be greatly valued. After a while, people will wonder how things worked without such a post—which, after a while, would find an appropriate home in one of the Ministries, as have the Minister for Sport and the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People.
I hope that today's debate will persuade the Prime Minister to acknowledge the views of numerous Members of Parliament—some of whom are legitimately unable to be present—and, above all, the views of all those in the ex-service organisations who would like recognition of the service that their members have given, and the sacrifices made by their comrades-in-arms who, although now deceased, have left widows and dependants.

Sir Jim Spicer: I warmly thank the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) for all that he has done to support the Royal British Legion over the years, and for giving me—a virtual new boy in its counsels—such wise guidance.
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) has cited as one of his main interests studying the battlefields of the first world war. Today, however, he has shown that his support and enthusiasm for our armed forces past, present and, indeed, future—for we are considering the future as much as the past—go far beyond that. I am cautious by nature, and I approach the subject with caution as well as enthusiasm. Anyone who believes that we could wave a wand tomorrow and appoint a Minister, and that then all the problems of ex-service men would be solved, is living in cloud cuckoo land. Let us think carefully about this, and go about it in the right way.
As the hon. Member mentioned in both his speech and his petition—I am not sure that I can go all the way with the petition—we are considering between 18,000 and 20,000 people who fought in the first world war and who are still alive, plus their dependants. Those dependants are very vulnerable, and often find themselves completely lost when left alone. Inevitably, and in a sense sadly, they are a decreasing problem. Then there are those who served in the second world war: no one can say exactly how many uniformed men and women served in that war, but there may have been as many as 8 million. Finally, there are the national service men, and regulars who have left or are now leaving the armed forces.
As the hon. Member for Thurrock pointed out, those people have been part of a family structure that has given both discipline and dependence. When they leave the forces, they are sometimes pretty vulnerable—far more vulnerable than people who have led entirely civilian lives, and know their way around.
I should declare an interest: I am a former service man. I joined the Army at 16, and served as a regular for some 14 years. I thought that it might be sensible to toughen up a bit in preparation for joining the Army, so I found work in a scrap metal yard. In those days, there were no forklift trucks; we had bagging hats and bagging hooks. I would climb up the side of my lorry with my bagging hat and hook and a hundredweight and a half of scrap, while two chaps waited below to put another load on.
I was paid the princely sum of £5 a week in that job. It was quite a shock to leave—admittedly, it was a 12-hour day—and to go into the armed forces, where my pay immediately dropped to 14 shillings a week. A year later, when I was commissioned, I found myself on 14 shillings a day. That was still less than what I would have been paid if I had stayed in the scrap metal yard—and I probably could have wangled it to remain there in a reserved occupation; my post-war credits would have built up. I missed out on that, and served—but that is exactly what I wanted to do.
Now I am president of my local branch of the Royal British Legion: the Beaminster branch, which, as my hon. Friend the Minister will know, is without doubt the finest branch in the United Kingdom. I hope that he will pay appropriate tribute to it when he winds up. [Interruption.] Views may differ, but I am better qualified than others to judge because of my former service.
I am full of the same enthusiasm as the hon. Member for Thurrock, but I understand the fears that exist in government. It is a little easier for the Opposition to say, "This is what we will do," but we need a firm pledge. The Royal British Legion is exerting pressure on the Government—rightly, in my view—but, as I have said, fears exist. We must ask ourselves first whether a direct Ministry involvement of this kind is really needed. I believe that it is, as does the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe, who has vast experience of dealing with the Royal British Legion in government as well as in opposition.
There is sometimes a lack of co-ordination between the 17 Departments which operate in this area. However, anyone who thinks that the work of 17 Departments can be drawn together in one sub-office of a Ministry is living in cloud cuckoo land; and that is not what we propose. We want to improve the work that is done in those Departments, and to co-ordinate it on occasions when co-ordination is necessary. As has been said, such a sub-Department could even save money, as things would be done more quickly.
If we accept that the need exists, we must then ask how it can best be met. A low-key system and a responsible Minister are necessary, as is a sub-office. Most crucially, we need what I would describe as an expediter who will ensure that matters are dealt with quickly, rather than an imperious Minister—not that Ministers are ever imperious, of course, but we do not want a Minister surrounded by a huge staff.
All Back Benchers—indeed, all Members of Parliament—should be aware of one possible problem. As soon as there is a designated Minister for veterans, a large number of people might bypass their local Member of Parliament. I hope and expect that all ex-service men in my constituency will write to me in the first instance asking me to deal with their problems; the last thing I want is for them to write directly to the Minister for ex-service men and ignore their Member of Parliament. That is my concern, and it must be met.
The right channel must be, first, to the Member of Parliament, who would then pass the problem to the sub-office for it then to be dealt with by other Departments. I would be extremely upset if the Minister for the sub-office wrote to me to say that he had received a letter from one of my constituents—not least because of the extra delay involved.
One must accept that a key role should be played by the Royal British Legion, which has field officers in almost every county. The Legion made it clear in discussions with the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and myself that it wanted to be involved and to be part of a partnership. It does not want the operation to be conducted exclusively by the Government, but equally, it does not want to tell the Government what they should do. It wants to set the scene, and then say to the Government, "You do what is right."
When I first became involved in this matter, one or two of my hon. Friends, who, I am pleased to say, are not here today, seized me by the scruff of the neck and said, "How dare you suggest that the sub-Department, or whatever it may be called, should be based in the Ministry of Defence? It must be based in the Department of Social Security, where it rightly belongs." The Royal British Legion hasa now made it quite clear that it is not its job to say how all this should be constructed or which Ministry should be involved: that is for the Government to decide.
As a former service man, I want the office to be based in the Ministry of Defence, which can pass matters on to social services if it wants to. Tribute has rightly been paid to the MOD, and to 3 Division in particular, for organising the marvellous events in Normandy. No other Department has the same skills and organisational ability or the same care and concern for ex-service men. I therefore hope that the office will be based in the MOD.
Over the years, another matter has concerned me. I have never liked bilateral discussions, whereby one obtains a version of what has been said by one person to another but discussions are never drawn together as a whole.
I have suggested to the officers of the Royal British Legion that we have reached the stage where we should stop having bilateral discussions and that, in the next month, a meeting should be held with advisers—I do not suggest that we want to meet three or four Ministers—from the Department of Social Security, the MOD and the policy unit at No. 10. They should sit down with the Royal British Legion to hear its sensible views and the role that it wants to play. I have also suggested that the RBL should second someone to work within a sub-unit under a Minister. I hope that my hon. Friend will act on both those proposals.
None of us wants to threaten Ministers, because that is the wrong way in which to go about things. Early-day motion 60 has been signed by 210 hon. Members. In another few weeks, the number may rise to 250. This issue will not go away over the summer recess. On the first day of the new Session, we shall table the early-day motion again and then we shall have up to 300 signatures.
All I beg is that we should have a sensible discussion. No one wants the matter to be blown up into a Department. We want only a co-ordinator, an expediter with a title, who will reinforce the role of Departments already involved in these matters and who will give a helping hand as and when it is needed to all our ex-service men and ex-service women.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer), respect for whom is as pronounced in the ex-service community, and rightly so, as it is on both sides of the House.
I want also warmly to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on his success in the ballot, and on the speech with which he opened this important debate. At the same time, I am most grateful to him for having conferred his good fortune in the ballot on the ex-service community by taking my early-day motion 60 as the text for his motion today.
The early-day motion, of which my hon. Friend was a principal signatory on the day it was tabled, is comprehensively all-party. As the hon. Member for Dorset, West has said, the motion has already been signed by more than 200 Members of Parliament from both sides of the House, and enjoys huge support in an ex-service community which today numbers 16 million people.
I have an interest to declare in this debate, and I do so with pride. In the past five years, I have been, together with the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox), joint honorary parliamentary adviser to the Royal British Legion, but my association with the ex-service community goes much further back. I am an ex-service man myself, which included active service overseas, and my mother was a war


widow from when I was only seven years old until she died 24 years later. So my interest in the ex-service community goes back almost for as long as I can remember.
Let me make it abundantly clear today that neither the motion nor the Royal British Legion calls for a new Department of State. We seek not to emulate other countries which have departments of veterans' affairs, but simply and deservedly to make life easier for the ex-service community here in the United Kingdom—not least the war disabled and war bereaved—by achieving a modest and common-sense change in the machinery of government that will relieve them and their organisations from having to deal, as the House has already heard, with no fewer than 17 different Ministries.
One of our problems in this debate, of course, is that it is the Prime Minister himself, not the Minister who will be replying, who has responsibility for the machinery of government, and for that reason I ask the Minister to undertake in his response that he will draw what is said today, more especially what is said on behalf of the ex-service organisations, very urgently to the personal attention of the Prime Minister.
I must also make it clear that the issue that we are debating today is one about which the ex-service community feels very strongly indeed. This year's Royal British Legion conference, which spoke for 800,000 Legion members, yet again voted unanimously to press the Government to establish a sub-Department of ex-service affairs in an existing Ministry.
The ex-service community wants someone in Whitehall to focus the Government's attention on all their concerns: a Minister who can provide full access to the Government as a whole through a single Whitehall door. As of now, not only is the left hand of Government often patently unaware of what the right hand is doing, but it frequently appears not to know whether there is any right hand at all.
The sub-Department we seek will have a co-ordinating function so that, where people have disabilities and need help in regard to a war pension or a mobility allowance, housing, employment or retraining, they will no longer have to deal with 17 different Ministries. For them now to have to do so is needlessly bureaucratic and inefficient, costly to the taxpayer, damaging to the reputations of Westminster and Whitehall and hurtful to the ex-service community.
I know from my own experience as Minister for Disabled People from 1974 to 1979, as some other Members of the House will know from their ministerial experience, that there will be more to the proposed new sub-Department than a co-ordinating role. Those who work in the sub-Department, more especially the Minister under whom it operates, will acquire a wide-ranging knowledge of the problems and needs of the ex-service community.
Who can doubt that all the recent tension between the Government and the ex-service community over the 50th anniversary of D-Day could have been avoided if there had been more sensitivity to and awareness of that community's wishes than proved possible under today's scheme of things? The lesson we must learn from that debacle is that there was a disastrous lack of communication between Government Departments and the ex-service community until it was too late to avoid confrontation.
What the motion proposes is without financial penalty, and involves no extra tier of administration. Fifty years after the second world war, when all who served are now pensioners, it is a clear duty of this House constantly to inquire how well we are looking after that generation. All of us owe them an especial debt. That we are not now honouring that debt is not difficult to prove. The revelations made by the media about the plight of many of the war widows whose husbands died on the Normandy beaches on 6 June 1944, not least of those who have never been able independently to afford to visit their husbands' graves, is proof enough.
Take the case of Harry Furbear, aged 77, the veteran of the Normandy beaches who was left dying on a trolley at a London teaching hospital, until his family offered to pay for a private bed. He died at King's College hospital on 6 June 1994—the 50th anniversary of D-day—after waiting for five hours in the accident and emergency department there for an NHS bed. That case, like the financial difficulties of so many elderly war widows, shames us all.

Mr. James Paice: By using that example, which manifestly should not have happened—I do not know the full story behind it—the right hon. Gentleman is reawakening my worries about the proposal, which the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) dispelled. I congratulate him on tabling the motion.
He talked about a Minister who would be a facilitator and who would, basically, bang heads together. What the right hon. Gentleman is implying is that there would be a substantial sub-Department which would take over the roles of other Departments that applied to ex-service men. There would then be a major dispute between the Department of Social Security, the Department of Health and other Departments.
We should all wish to dissociate ourselves from the example given. No one is suggesting that a Minister with responsibility for ex-service men could have stopped that happening. It was clearly a management issue within a particular hospital.

Mr. Morris: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice). That case was argued in the media, not only in the journals of ex-service organisations, as an instructive lesson about the need to make sure that there is a focal point to which families very quickly can refer. I shall be making it clear as I proceed that there are many avoidable cases of suffering that a co-ordinating Minister could avoid by prevention.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member—we agree from time to time on other issues—but I hope that he will agree with me that the distressing case I mentioned has many lessons to teach us. We are not talking about a new Department of State or about a single Minister acting executively in every case. We want to prevent any kind of preventable suffering by having institutional arrangements that make it impossible to happen.

Mr. Heald: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Morris: I heard the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), who wants me now to give way, talk earlier about the national health service. It is too little known—I speak as a former co-ordinating Minister—that war pensioners have a special right to


priority in the national health service. They have priority as of right. Now that is not known to thousands of GPs and other doctors in this country.
With the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer), I was with the principal officers of the Royal British Legion the day before yesterday. We were talking then about the extent of ignorance in the medical world of the priority that existing arrangements allow war pensioners. But we need—I put it most strongly to the House—constantly to remind the community of the rights of the ex-service community, so that, as I said, the case at King's College hospital cannot happen again. I shall mention other points.

Mr. Heald: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Morris: Very briefly, because there are other people who want to speak in the debate.

Mr. Heald: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I will keep it brief, because I would like to make a contribution myself.
On the point about the hospital in London, how on earth would it have made a difference if there had been a Minister for ex-service men's affairs? He would not have been managing that hospital or had any role within it, would he?

Mr. Morris: I think I have already responded to a similar point. What I have said is that it is not appreciated by many GPs, among other people in the national health service, that war pensioners have special claims. That is not clearly enough known. The precise details of the case have been gone into at much greater length than I gave this morning. I think I was entitled to assume that the House would be familiar both with the particular case and with the concern expressed about it in the ex-service community.
I speak, as the House has heard, as joint honorary parliamentary adviser, with the hon. Member for Shipley, to the Royal British Legion. In that capacity, I have a close and continuing relationship, day by day, with those who administer the Royal British Legion and who look at cases like the one I have mentioned as legitimate grounds for concern.
Of course, the debt we owe to Britain's armed forces is not confined to those who served from 1939 to 1945 Indeed, against the background of "Options for Change" and statements on the next round of defence cuts, there is need now not only to protect the men and women about to leave the services and those who have already left, but also to maintain the confidence of those still serving from whom so much will be expected.
Some people ask why the ex-service community must be treated as a special case. Many serve for as long as 30 years. Their conditions of service are special and the problems they face on leaving the service are not understood by most civilians. While the disciplined and ordered life they lead provides security, their career demands obedience and the taking of special risks. But unless they are injured or killed, this does not grant them or their dependants special treatment.
The demands made of those on active service—most recently in the Falklands and the Gulf, in Northern Ireland and Bosnia, where another young British soldier gave his life this week—are more widely recognised than those of service men and women generally.
How many of us in this House appreciate how difficult it can be for people now leaving the forces to readjust to civilian life, perhaps years earlier than they expected to be doing? Unlike their civilian counterparts, they have no territorial rights and no place on local authority housing lists. The days have long gone when ex-service people, on demobilisation or discharge, had priority for local authority housing.

Mr. William Ross: In Northern Ireland, ex-service people still have a degree of priority with the Housing Executive.

Mr. Morris: I am aware that there are differences within the United Kingdom, which themselves point to the need for more co-ordination. I rather sense that, in Northern Ireland, there is a bit more co-ordination between Departments than there is on this side of the water.
Ex-service people, on demobilisation or discharge, used to have a priority—indeed, a prescriptive right—to be considered urgently for local authority housing. That is not so today. Nor is retraining needed for employment in civilian life readily available. When civilians lose their jobs, most have a home and friends in their community to help them. Their wives or husbands have jobs to support the family and their children will be at the local school.
This is not so in the case of a service man who, if not from overseas, will be coming from another part of the country. Often both partners will have to look for a job, to find a home and a school and to put down roots in a community. All these problems involve different Government Departments and local authorities. It is for that reason that a specialised and co-ordinating Minister, with a staff who understand the whole range of the ex-service community's problems, is now so essential.
All of us rejoice, of course, that we have had no major war for 50 years. One consequence of this is that civil servants and even senior members of the Government have no first-hand experience of service life. The knowledge required to deal with customers—if I may borrow a term from the citizen's charter—often is not there. It is not there in the way that it would be, for example, in a community in the Rhondda, where a DSS official who did not know all about problems of ex-miners would be a very unusual official indeed.
I say without hesitation, from much personal knowledge of its admirable work, that the War Pensions Agency at Norcross has a very high reputation with the ex-service community for the sympathetic way in which it handles their problems. They are handled at Norcross by people who, although not having served, have obvious sympathy with ex-service people from dealing exclusively and as specialists with their problems and needs. This could quite easily be achieved across the board, not just for war pensioners but for all ex-service people, by setting up the sub-Department of ex-service affairs called for by the motion.
Let me give the House an example of how what we are seeking in this motion could have helped a soldier whose injuries led to paralysis in the lower part of his body in addition to other severe disabilities. He spent a very long time in a military hospital, not because his disabilities made it necessary for him to receive further treatment there, but simply because there was nowhere else for him to go. Although the local council where he wished to settle had agreed in principle to accommodate him, it could not


confirm this until he had left the Army. But the Army would not discharge him without proof that he had somewhere to live—a catch-22 situation par excellence.
In this case, a co-ordinating Minister and agency would clearly have been able either to prevent or at least quickly to resolve that unfortunate ex-service man's problems. Thanks to his Member of Parliament, social workers and painstakingly hard work by the Legion, his avoidable extra suffering is now at an end. He is comfortably housed in a specially adapted home and is planning to write a book about his experiences.
That disturbing case alone demonstrates the urgent need for a co-ordinating Minister and agency. But sadly, the case is by no means unusual. In fact, the legion has had to act as a sort of sub-department of ex-service affairs itself in helping thousands of other ex-service victims of the present "system"—I put the word in quotation marks—and is continuing to do so. That is not, of course, the legion's role. It should be acting to supplement Government assistance, not as a substitute for it. Yet every day, it finds service men and women who lack the help and advice they need simply because they do not know where to turn to get it.
This motion can stop that happening. It will also enable the Government of the day, through the Minister responsible, to establish a closer and more effective relationship and better lines of communication with the ex-service community and the organisations, like the Royal British Legion, that work with unceasing concern and distinction to defend and promote their interests. It will improve Government policy-making and make the community as a whole more aware of the needs of people than whom no one has a more compelling call on the attention and support of this House.

Mr. Matthew Banks: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye in this very important debate. I know that a number of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members want to contribute, so I shall be brief.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) for the way in which he spoke. Although I do not entirely agree with the wording of his motion, I am sympathetic to the suggestion that we should set up a sub-department. I share the caution of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer), who spoke so eloquently.
I recall that, 11 years ago, after I left a military hospital, I came home on the night of the 1983 general election. I knew that I had little time left to serve in Her Majesty's forces and I wondered what I was going to do; what the future held for me. When I was originally commissioned into the Gordon Highlanders I had hoped to remain in the service and make a contribution, at least up to the age of 55. Sadly, that was not to be because of injury.
On that night in 1983, with only a few weeks to go before I was discharged, I recall watching the election results coming in and making the decision there and then that I wished to become a Member of Parliament. Now, a decade or so later, I have the opportunity, provided by the hon. Member for Thurrock, to pay tribute to the staff and civil servants who now form part of the War Pensions

Agency for their dedication, expertise and enthusiasm in looking after the interests of ex-service men and women, especially those who have been disabled in the service of their country.
A number of hon. Members have referred to the ages of ex-service men and women who have been disabled, and their dependants. It is not just a question of those in their 70s or older; not of those in their 60s or 50s; but of those in receipt of war pensions who require our help and support but who are very much younger than myself. They have served with distinction. There are those who were injured in Northern Ireland; those who served in the Falkland Islands; those who served in other conflicts in the middle east; or, indeed, those about whom we do not necessarily know, and of whose activities we may all too often be only vaguely aware, but who nevertheless did sterling work and were injured looking after the interests of this country and Europe, and the peace of the world as a whole. They have had to give up their careers and in some instances were particularly badly injured.
I am fortunate; officially, I am only 20 per cent. disabled. I receive some £86 per month tax-free from the Paymaster General. There are many people—the hon. Member for Thurrock and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) referred to other instances—who are at least 90 per cent. disabled. I do not know about the King's college case which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, but he was entirely right to draw attention to the priority treatment which those in receipt of war pensions should receive.
I pay tribute to the War Pensions Agency for publishing a new document entitled "War Pensions and Other Support—How To Claim: MPL153 April 1994". The document was published when the agency was created. Among other things, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, it draws attention to the priority that should be given in the national health service to those who require treatment for their war disability. It clearly says that ex-service men and women must make sure that their doctors and hospitals know that they are war pensioners, and if they have any difficulties, it lists the names, addresses and telephone numbers of people throughout the United Kingdom, on the mainland and in Northern Ireland, whom they can contact.
In the next few moments, I hope that it will be possible for me—following the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West—to suggest that it is entirely right that we should be cautious. We do not want to try to cut through the red tape and find, as I fear, that far from achieving what we want, we end up winding the whole thing in red tape. Certainly, at the end of this week, there will be at least 211 signatures on the early-day motion to which my hon. Friend referred. As he knows, I tend not to sign early-day motions because, frankly, their merits have been devalued somewhat recently. However, I think that it is an important one, and I hope that my hon. Friend is right and that the number of signatures will reach 250 or more shortly.
The issue will not go away but, I hope that, in drawing attention to some of the many positive things which the Government, the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Social Security have done, especially over the past 20 years, it will be possible to demonstrate that it is not necessary to have full-blown bureaucracy—a Department or, indeed, a Minister. To put the remarks of the hon.


Member for Thurrock in context, I shall look back and see what has been done to look after war widows and those who are war disabled.
The armed forces pension scheme has been significantly improved since 1973. Before then, war widows could receive only the Department of Social Security pension or a forces pension based on their husbands' service, whichever was the greater. Since 1973, war widows have been allowed to keep both pensions. At the time, there was criticism that a differential had been created between the two groups of widows.
I am satisfied that it has been addressed, because special Ministry of Defence payments to pre-1973 war widows were introduced in 1989 by the former Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). In April 1990, a tax-free payment of some £40 a week was introduced for all such women, and it now amounts to £47.84 per week. Also, since 1979, the Government have uprated war widows' pensions in line with inflation, and in 1979 the pension was made a tax-free payment, which is particularly significant.
In 1984, a new tier of age allowance was introduced to provide additional money for war widows aged over 80, and now there are age allowances for all widows over the age of 65. In 1987, extra help for funeral costs was made available to all war pensioners. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe drew attention to that, and to the opportunities that are available for dependants to visit Commonwealth war graves throughout the world. Those are significant steps, and I know that the measures are warmly welcomed across the House.
Improvements have been made to income disregards for the purposes of calculating social security benefits. The payment that I mentioned of £47.84 is disregarded completely in benefit calculations, and other awards are partially disregarded. I shall lay down one marker in that regard. It is right that the Department of the Environment, the Department of Social Security and the Ministry of Defence should actively seek to encourage more local authorities to allow a greater disregard of housing benefit, because all too often the war pension is added into the calculation of how much money disabled ex-service men and women can earn before a decision is taken on how much benefit they should receive.
War disablement pensions are rightly paid at different rates to disabled people, depending on the extent of their disability. A pension is paid in cases where disablement is assessed at 20 per cent. or more; for those who are assessed at 19 per cent. or less, there is a range of one-off payments.
I particularly want to draw attention to two or three allowances. First, a treatment allowance is paid at the full rate of disablement pension where a person requires treatment for his condition and has reduced earnings as a result. When I left the Army, I received an allowance which brought my income to somewhere near the level that I might have enjoyed if I had remained an officer in Her Majesty's forces.
An unemployability supplement is available in cases of severe disability, together with additions for dependants. An invalidity allowance is paid to those in receipt of unemployability supplement, and a constant attendant allowance exists for pensioners in hospitals who require personal attendance because of their disability. That allowance is paid to people with a life expectancy of six months or less, whether or not he or she requires attendance.
There are also allowances for severe disablement, which are paid to people who are in work. There are also allowances for those working in a lower standard of occupation because of their injuries. There are age allowances, clothing allowances, comfort allowances and temporary allowances for widows which can be paid when a war pensioner dies while not eligible for unemployability supplement or constant attendance allowance. There is a considerable number of allowances.
With the advent of the War Pensions Agency, I am especially pleased that the Department of Social Security is giving greater publicity to those allowances. In Southport, which has a higher than average proportion of ex-service men and women—and, I might add, a higher proportion of members of the Royal British Legion in our community—more of them are beginning to realise that they are able to take advantage of those allowances. I pay tribute to those who work in the War Pensions Agency, who have bent over backwards to assist people needing help in making claims.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock on allowing us the opportunity to debate this issue. I underline the comments that I made earlier in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West. It is entirely right that we should be cautious. I shall listen carefully to the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister when he replies to the debate. We should recognise today the enormous amount of good work that is being undertaken. I end where I started—by paying tribute to the commitment, expertise and enthusiasm of the staff of the War Pensions Agency.

Mrs. Diana Maddock: I am delighted that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) has given us the opportunity to discuss today the welfare of ex-service men and women and to explore ways in which we can better co-ordinate the handling of ex-service men's affairs at a governmental level.
This time last year, the constituency that I now represent was portrayed across our television screens as perhaps a retirement paradise—a pretty place to retire. For many of the people who live there, life is not quite so pretty as that picture, so the subject of the debate today is of concern to me and to many of my constituents, many of whom are retired service personnel.
Before I discuss whether we should have a Department of ex-service affairs, I wish to highlight the experiences of one or two of my ex-service constituents who feel that they have not had a fair deal. Last year, a retired squadron leader wrote to me. He was worried about how he would pay VAT on his fuel bills. He went on to tell me that, when he retired from the Royal Air Force in 1958, under the terms and conditions of the Government's premature retirement axe, which was in force at the time, he became entitled to a full officer's retirement pension. All well and good, we might say. Many deserving cases fail to achieve that. However, ever since he was first awarded his pension, its value has been fading away.
My constituent's entitlement now, up to and including last year's pension increase, is a little more than £8,500 a year. That is for a rank equivalent to Army major. By comparison, the annual pension of a squadron leader who retired last year would be closer to £16,000. Today, retired payment awards are almost double those made to officers who retired between 1956 and 1959. Indeed, their widows'


pensions are about three times higher. It seems to me and to my constituent that, if it is considered right that officers who retire today need those rates of pay currently awarded in order to maintain a reasonable standard of living, the same reasoning should apply in the cases of officers who retired in earlier generations. My constituent had this to say:
Most surviving RAF aircrew of my generation fought throughout the last war;…we had naively thought that we would at least be treated in a comparable manner to those officers who followed us. We were wrong".
I know that the issue of the low levels of pension awarded has been raised in the House by other hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace).

Mr. Heald: Is what the hon. Lady is putting forward the Liberal viewpoint? Does she know what the Labour viewpoint is? There is not one Labour Member in the Chamber for the debate on a major issue of this importance. Not even the proposer of the motion is present.

Mrs. Maddock: The view that I am giving is the view of my constituent, as relayed to me and which I promised to relay to the House. I have considerable sympathy with what that gentleman had to say.
One of the issues raised with me—this was mentioned by the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks)—by many of my constituents is the decline in the use of war pensions disregards by local councils when calculating certain benefits. Traditionally, local councils have been encouraged to disregard war pensions when calculating housing benefit and council tax benefit, but I fear that the great squeeze on local authority budgets implemented by the Government has meant that an increasing number of councils are having to look again at whether they can afford the disregard. I do not believe that that is necessarily because they lack compassion or are disrespectful to ex-service men. It is simply that the budgets are so tightly controlled by Whitehall that it is becoming more and more difficult to find that money.
Given that both housing benefit and council tax benefit are determined by central Government—even if they are administered by local government—it would not be wholly unreasonable to place a statutory duty on local councils to disregard at least some of every war pension when they calculate benefits. That would have to be accompanied by measures to allow local authorities to gather the funds necessary to do so.
I was also contacted earlier this year by an ex-service man who has had considerable difficulty obtaining a higher rate of war disablement pension. He has been trying to do so ever since he was discharged from the Army with rheumatic fever after the second world war. He was told when he was examined by an Army doctor when he joined in 1940, "You are an A1 chap. You will do all that an A1 chap is required to do. If you refuse to do it at home you will be court martialled and if you refuse to do it overseas you could be shot for cowardice."
After my constituent left the Army, he was told that he had never been fully fit and that his military service had aggravated a problem that was already there. Yet he has had the greatest difficulty convincing anyone else of that. He has been referred to the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Social Security and the Department of

Health about his pension entitlement as well as to the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, and that is just in the past year. It does not really make any sense. So there is clear logic in having one Minister who can handle ex-service affairs as a whole, particularly when they go wrong.

Sir Jim Spicer: The hon. Lady outlines a sad category of disaster for that person. At what point has she written in indignation to the Minister on his behalf and said that she will not put up with treatment of that order for a constituent and that she wants something done? Has she received no reply to the constant attempts that she has made? If she has not, it is a disgraceful state of affairs and all of us should be disturbed by it.

Mrs. Maddock: Of course I have written on behalf of this gentleman, as my predecessor also did. We have failed to get satisfaction. I am still pursuing the matter. The gentleman had his case referred to an independent tribunal. It found in his favour, but I regret that the Government have not gone along with that. The matter is still being pursued.
The question is whether setting up a new sub-Department would help. I know that the Royal British Legion says that it would, and I have great respect for its views. It is attracted by the obvious benefits of having one focal point in the Government with which to deal. We could benefit from having a Minister with responsibility for ex-service affairs, without the disadvantages of the added bureaucracy of separating ex-service personnel benefits from those of other recipients and of dealing with their problems in a vacuum. There is a great danger that, if a separate Department of ex-service affairs were created, it could lead to marginalisation of those interests just as easily as the present system does.

Mr. Alan Duncan: I was reflecting on what the hon. Lady said a moment ago about the case of her constituent, who, she said, had gone to appeal and had won the appeal, but it had not been acted on. It would help the House, and certainly the Minister, if she could give individual details of the case, so that we can be sure that what she is saying is absolutely right, because she has levelled a severe charge.
Furthermore, she said earlier that she was speaking on behalf of her constituents. That is all well and good, but if she is speaking for her constituents and not for the Liberal Democratic party, of which she is a member, will she explain to the House why there is no spokesman for her party in the Chamber prepared to explain her party's policy on such an important matter?

Mrs. Maddock: First, obviously, I have written to the Minister, I am writing again and I shall continue to pursue it. Secondly, yes, I am speaking as a member of my party, and I said earlier that the Liberal Democrats had some sympathy with the motion. I apologise if that was not clear.

Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an allegation to be made that the Government are in contempt of an order of a court, without giving the name of the person concerned and the details of the case?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As far as the Chair is concerned, in this Chamber hon. Members are responsible for their own words.

Mrs. Maddock: Perhaps I should clarify matters. I made the point that the decision was made not in a court but at an independent tribunal on ex-service affairs. It found in my constituent's favour and made a recommendation and it was not acted on, as I understand it.

Mr. Heald: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Without trespassing on the good will of the Chair, it must be the case that, if it is a statutory tribunal, it has the powers of a court. If the allegation is that the Government are in contempt of court, it is about the gravest possible charge in our constitution. We must have the details.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the ruling that I have just given. Equally, the hon. Lady will have heard the views of the House and will wish to respond as she deems fit.

Mrs. Maddock: I am still pursuing the matter because we have not had an answer yet, so it is probably inappropriate to take it further today. I have written to the Minister. I merely want to point out that people have such problems.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): The hon. Lady is getting into quite deep water, and I wonder if she would respond to my invitation to withdraw what appears to be quite a serious allegation against some unknown Minister about some unnamed constituent. She has left an impression with the House that a decision on an appeal has been reached by a statutory tribunal, but that the Government—or a Minister—have been refusing to implement the tribunal's decision. From everything that I know about the way in which Government and Ministers work, that is almost unthinkable. Therefore, she has made a serious allegation. I sense from some of her most recent answers that she is not quite sure of her facts. Would she care to reword her allegation, and at least leave us with the impression that perhaps there are more questions to be asked, before she makes such a serious allegation?

Mrs. Maddock: I apologise if hon. Members think that I have been accusing a Minister of not responding. I was trying to point out that my constituent had problems in sorting out the matter and that I was in correspondence with the Minister to try to remedy it. If that does not clarify the situation, I am willing to give the Minister details after the debate.
Some of the problems identified by the Royal British Legion relate to the universal incomprehensibility of our benefits system. Many people have problems dealing with many of our Government processes, and such problems are not unique to ex-service personnel. However, ex-service personnel suffer more than most because of the different culture and different methods of dealing with their housing or their disability, for example, in the armed forces.
I hope that the Government will get the message from this debate that there is a fundamental problem in our tax and benefits system, which sends members of the public running from pillar to post between the Department of Social Security and its myriad agencies, the Department of Health, the Department of Employment and many other Departments. Sometimes tribunals go on for a number of years. Sometimes they are adjourned because relevant information is not available and we have to start all over

again. Our entire social security system needs to become much more user-friendly, and particular attention should be paid to the problems faced by ex-service personnel.
The recent commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the D-day landings in Normandy has reminded any of us who needed a reminder that we owe a great debt to those who fought fascism half a century ago so that we could enjoy freedom and democracy in Britain and in many other parts of the world. We are all as rightly proud of our Royal Navy, the British Army and our Royal Air Force as we ever were. Our armed forces are facing cuts on a scale not seen since the end of the second world war, so we should be especially aware of the importance of helping ex-service personnel back into civilian life—encouraging them to retrain and to use their skills in industry, giving them the opportunity to resume their education if that is what they choose and assisting them, as other hon. Members have said, in obtaining decent housing.
The handling of ex-service affairs at a governmental level remains a problem, as we have all heard. The Government have so far shown a rather disappointing unwillingness to address that problem, so I hope that they will at least facilitate a proper meeting with ex-service men's representatives to consider how the matters should be addressed and to listen to what they have to say. Having a Minister for ex-service affairs, or perhaps giving a Minister in either or both of the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Social Security responsibility for dealing with and co-ordinating ex-service affairs would be a positive step forward and a much-needed sign that the Government recognise the problems highlighted in the debate and have a will to tackle the problems. I hope that they will take that step.

Mr. Roy Thomason: Like other hon. Members, I declare what I think is a non-pecuniary interest, as yet another honorary member of the Royal British Legion. It seems that the House is full of such Members, and I am delighted to be associated with that organisation. I welcome the debate, and especially the way in which the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) presented his case. He put a number of points which have made some of us stop and consider carefully the merits of his arguments. I pay tribute to his initiation of the debate and his presentation of the arguments.
I am rather surprised, however, that, apart from a brief period, the Opposition Front Bench has remained in its current state—empty of any representative from the principal Opposition party. I should have thought that such a debate would merit attention by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen more or less throughout its course. There are important issues to be aired and one would have expected them to wish to hear the opinions of hon. Members and to present their policies.
We all owe much to those who have fought for this country. Although we remember every year those who have died, there are other memorials around us, not least the shields on the wall of the Chamber, as a constant reminder of the sacrifices that were made. We also remember the many people who carry their own reminder through the injuries that they have suffered. We do not remember just those who went through the world wars, but those who have offered themselves, perhaps without


suffering injury, in more minor skirmishes or in continuing serious action in the Falklands and, in particular, Northern Ireland.
The problems encountered by ex-service people are not rooted in history. We are not talking about those who will fade slowly from the scene. Ex-service men and women who have been prepared to lay down their lives for this country will be with us indefinitely and solutions must be reached not just to suit today but for the future. The Ministry of Defence, like any good employer, has a duty to look after its retiring and redundant staff. Those employees are a special case because of their particular potential for sacrifice and the good employer rules should apply with particular strength to them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) was right to remind us that the Government have already done much to promote the care and welfare of ex-service personnel. They have introduced schemes such as the resettlement training programme, established regional resettlement centres, entered into joint partnership with the British Legion to develop a new training centre at Tidworth—which has benefited from European grant—established a services employment network and published the "Services Resettlement Voluntary Supplement". All those initiatives are designed to assist retiring service men and women to find alternative employment.
I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) that ex-service personnel represent a special case because of their vulnerability. During their service career, those individuals lived in a particularly closed environment. They were looked after in a manner unknown by most people in civvy street. They were provided with housing and leisure through in-service provision. Welfare services were always available to give support where required. As members of the forces, they live in a disciplined, controlled environment.
Then suddenly, they are expected to make their own way in a new career, in a totally different world. It is therefore particularly important that they are looked after during that transition. In common with other hon. Members, I pay particular tribute to the work of the Royal British Legion in assisting in that resettlement process. Notwithstanding that work, the MOD must continue to exercise its responsibilities for looking after service personnel once they leave the forces.
A constituent came to see me about a housing problem. He had just left the Army, although his family were still living in married quarters. I gained the impression that the support that the Army had provided to him as he prepared to leave its service would soon cease. He would not receive any after-sales service, but service personnel require such a service for some years after they have left the forces.
I am delighted that the Government are assisting service personnel by allowing them to buy their married quarters. They are also participating in do-it-yourself shared ownership schemes, which will allow people to buy into their service homes. The saving schemes and the services preferential mortgage scheme provided by the Government are excellent means of assisting service people to purchase housing. Those individuals, like anyone else, want to buy their own homes. We know that 80 per cent. of the

population wish to be home owners and there is no reason to suppose that Army, Navy or Air Force personnel are any different.
I am pleased to note that the Minister of State for Armed Forces has joined the Minister for Defence Procurement on the Front Bench. Yet another Government representative is present, which reaffirms my point about the absence of and lack of support from any shadow spokesman.
According to a recent report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 1,700 families are living illegally in United Kingdom armed service married quarters. That figure has increased in recent years. Illegal occupancy does not mean pure squatting, but that people who have left the forces have not had alternative housing provided for them. That is a serious problem.
Many local authorities require the services to seek eviction orders before they will house homeless families. That is entirely contrary to Government policy. The Government have made it clear that service people should be given priority when applying for local authority housing, and it is a disgrace that some local authorities are not meeting that Government requirement, but instead are putting service families through the strain and trauma of having eviction orders served against them. That practice illustrates the accommodation problems encountered.
Another problem is that the real value of the lump sum gratuity paid to service families has declined. Twenty years ago, it was adequate to buy a home, but that is no longer so. That, too, adds to the housing pressure. In the 1960s, a sergeant-major received a lump sum of £5,000, which was perfectly adequate to buy an ordinary semi-detached house. Today, the lump sum of £15,000 is hardly enough for a deposit on a semi-detached house, the average value of which is in the region of £55,000. It is clear that securing long-term housing for ex-service people is a problem.
When the Minister for Defence Procurement replies to the debate, I hope that he will tell us how the new announcement of the housing trust with responsibility for service accommodation, the professional management of housing stock and the cost-effective use of MOD properties will ensure that some of the problems are overcome.
I have taken particular note of what the hon. Member for Thurrock said. When I first studied the terms of the motion, I questioned the establishment of a sub-Department, for three reasons: I wondered what it would achieve, what authority it would have and what work it would be able to do. We have already heard about the special health care, pension arrangements and resettlement grants that are already available to ex-service people, so what could a sub-Department achieve for those individuals?
Housing provision will still be a matter for local authorities and the Department of the Environment, while social security benefits must remain a policy matter for the Department of Social Security. Policies must still be determined by individual Departments and Ministers according to general criteria, so I believe that a sub-Department would achieve very little.
Secondly, what authority would a Minister in charge of such a sub-Department exercise? By virtue of the rules and conventions of government, he would have to be attached to a Department, but he could not be attached to all the Departments involved in matters which affect ex-service personnel. Such a Minister would be in danger of becoming a mere postboy or postgirl, passing messages from one Department to another.
Thirdly, what work would the new sub-Department do? The administration of benefits lies with the Benefits Agency, the administration of war pensions lies with the War Pensions Agency, and the administration of housing applications lies with local authorities, so the new sub-Department would not have much work to do. We do not need a specific Department to look after health and social security, because we do not have special programmes. Rather, we integrate welfare for ex-service personnel with the policies of those Departments.
At the outset, I sought to oppose the motion, not because I wanted to attack the welfare provisions for ex-service people but because I thought that the motion would simply increase bureaucracy. Having heard the constructive remarks of the hon. Member for Thurrock, however, I am more or less persuaded that there may be a case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West suggested, for a Minister at the Ministry of Defence to be specifically responsible for keeping an eye on ex-service issues and to have a minor co-ordinating role.
I emphasise the word "minor" because it should not be a sub-Department or a dedicated Minister, as I believe the hon. Member for Thurrock intended and as was the thrust of the initial proposals that I and other hon. Members received from the Royal British Legion. We are now presented with an idea that may be more acceptable to a wider number of hon. Members.
I detected a difference of emphasis in the remarks of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who reverted to the original proposal of the British Legion to create a specific structure within a Department. In this modern age, there is no place for increasing bureaucracy. We want to decrease it and reduce regulation. Provided that the welfare of ex-service personnel is specifically incorporated within an existing Minister's portfolio, we may make further progress.

Mr. Alf Morris: Representatives of the Royal British Legion have not, in recent memory, been asking for a new Department of State. I was reflecting earlier in the debate the points which they, as national representatives of the ex-service community, feel are extremely important. They have no time for grandiosity. They feel that they are victims of bureaucracy. The motion is not about creating a new bureaucracy but about making life easier for members of the ex-service community and their dependants.

Mr. Thomason: That summarises the difference between the mover of the motion and the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe. Other hon. Members may disagree with me, but the difference I detect is that the mover wants a Minister who would simply keep an eye on what is happening, while the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe wants to set up a structure that would co-ordinate and deal with the affairs of ex-service personnel, with civil servants being appointed to such a structure to process those matters and deal with delays. We cannot deal with delays for ex-service personnel in a separate compartment but only as part of the generality of those who are allegedly not receiving the service that they should be receiving from the Government. As the citizens charters suggest, everyone is entitled to a proper service from Departments, and we must beware of compartmentalising any section of the community.
I did not suggest that the Royal British Legion was arguing for setting up a Department of state. The word

"sub-Department" has always been used, but a sub-Department with a dedicated Minister and a peripheral mass of civil servants working to support that Minister is different from a Minister who is part of an established Department, who already undertakes a series of jobs and who will have added to his portfolio responsibility for co-ordinating work relating to ex-service people. That idea is much more acceptable.

Mr. Mackinlay: At the risk of alienating the hon. Gentleman, given his supportive remarks, there is not a blade of grass between my objectives and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). The debate is intended for hon. Members to bounce ideas off one another and try to influence the Prime Minister to think about the issue. However, I am in concert with the hon. Gentleman on the concept of making a start.
Let us have an existing Minister, which will involve no extra cost or bureaucracy, along the same lines as the Minister responsible for sport. That Minister has many other functions, such as responsibility for water, health, housing and a plethora of other issues, but everyone knows that he is also responsible for sport. A Minister responsible for ex-service personnel may already be in the Department of Defence or of Social Security, but his responsibility for ex-service personnel could be written into his job description.

Mr. Thomason: Many hon. Members would be happy with that arrangement, provided that it was not the thin end of the wedge. I am concerned that some hon. Members may see it in a slightly different context. I am perfectly happy with the provision of additional responsibilities, because, for the reasons I gave earlier, I have great sympathy with ex-service personnel.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I understand that the hon. Gentleman has remarked on my absence from the Front Bench. Had he been alert, he would have noticed that I was given a green card. I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) that I had to leave the Chamber briefly in response to a green card. Otherwise, I have been present all morning, and I intend to stay and listen to what the Minister says.

Mr. Thomason: I referred to the absence of Opposition Members on the Front Bench, not to a specific Member. I remain surprised that the Opposition can produce only one Front-Bench spokesman, who was here fairly briefly and then—albeit for good reasons—had to disappear and could not find anyone else to ensure that his party was represented throughout the debate. That is contempt for the purposes of the motion.

Mr. Heald: There was also a long period when no Labour Members were present.

Mr. Thomason: My hon. Friend is right, and that fact should be placed clearly on the record.

Mr. Mackinlay: My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) explained his difficulty to me. A constituent came to see him and, as mover of the motion, I fully understood that he had to leave the Chamber.
I hope that we shall not labour the point too much this morning, because the tenor of the debate has shown a common interest across the Floor of the House. I hope that the debate will not deteriorate suddenly into one in which


partisan points are made and we score points off one another. In crafting my speech, I was careful to demonstrate to people elsewhere that this matter commands the interest of the whole House and is not a party political issue. I hope that the rest of our debate will proceed in that spirit.

Mr. Thomason: I hope that we can proceed in that way and that we shall see a representative of the Opposition Front Bench present for the remainder of the debate. That would be a pleasant novelty. Any partisanship introduced into the debate was started by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock), who made the most extraordinary allegations against the Government and then left the Chamber.
Service men have the same right as all citizens to expect good and reliable service from the Government and Government agencies. Great improvements have been and are being made to the conditions of ex-service people, and much more is being done. There is a need for a demonstration of continuing concern for ex-service men through the Ministry of Defence acting as a good employer who cares for those who have left the service and are emerging into a different world. There is no case for a sub-Department, but I accept that there is a case to be argued for a Minister to take on ex-service responsibilities.

Mr. William Ross: Like the other hon. Members who have spoken, I think that we owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) for raising the subject today. Like him, I am too young to have fought in the last war, but I can well remember soldiers camping in the yard when I was a small boy, which was exciting. I also remember being held in my parents' arms and watching the reflected glare of a burning Belfast in the sky in 1941.
As I grew older, I came to understand the debt we owe to all those who fought and died, and left dependants behind. It has not yet been mentioned that, for Ulster and for the wider public in the nation, today is a particularly appropriate day to have this debate. It is 1 July, the 78th anniversary of the battle of the Somme, in which many thousands of our fellow countrymen died, not least from the Province which I have the honour to represent.
On Sunday week, I was present at the unveiling of the first public war memorial in the southern part of my constituency—the churches, of course, all have their own. That memorial was unveiled in the village of Castledawson by Mr. Leslie Bell, who was wounded when he was 20, on the first day of the battle of the Somme. He is a sprightly 98 and I hope that the House will send him congratulations because he is back on the Somme battlefield today, as he has been for many years past, remembering his comrades who died and whose names are inscribed on the memorial.
The leader of the Ulster Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), with Merlyn Rees and, no doubt, other hon. Members, have pursued the matter in the past. In the last Parliament, they asked Ministers whether the Government would make the provision sought in the motion for those ex-service personnel, but the Government declined to do so. Those

Members have a keen interest in the welfare of the families and dependants of their past comrades and friends who died, and those who are still alive.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley is one of the few remaining Members of the House who saw combat in the war and, I believe, the last remaining Member who crossed the Normandy beaches on D-day. He was not in the first wave, but went across later to build an airfield for the Royal Air Force. He always says that, when he got there, the 21st Panzer division was in occupation, so they built the airfield elsewhere, prudence being the better part of valour on that occasion.
It was a great honour for me, as it was for every other hon. Member who did so, to visit Normandy on 6 June this year for the commemoration of that tremendous enterprise. It was an emotional and humbling experience to see the survivors march past, and it drew our attention once again to the debt that we owe them. It increased our pride in, and awe of, what they did; we were conscious of the pride of the veterans as they marched past.
The sense of the debt that we owe the veterans should be ever more present in our minds as we, and the survivors of the great wars, grow older. The question is how best we can discharge that debt. The hon. Member for Thurrock mentioned Ards borough council in Northern Ireland. The debt is felt strongly by those who were liberated in the low countries, France and throughout occupied Europe. On 6 June this year those people showed how grateful they were to so many people in the United Kingdom and elsewhere who took part in the liberation of Europe. They are always generous to those who visit. The people of Belgium want to repay in some measure the debt that they owe.
Ards borough council, like other councils in Northern Ireland, does not have the legal authority to pay for members of the public to travel to Belgium, but the Minister in charge of the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland can grant the authority. Those interested in the matter—not only Opposition Members but Conservative Members—should take it up with the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith). We want to discharge the debt that we owe to all ex-service personnel and their dependants.
Today's debate goes some way towards clarifying the issue in people's minds, as was made clear by the remarks of the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason). The subject is too important for point scoring, although there has been some banter backwards and forwards across the Floor today. I hope that the Government will take seriously the arguments advanced and, if they decline to do what has been asked by the hon. Member for Thurrock, give us detailed reasons why.
The ranks of those who fought in the 1914–18 war are thin, and the ranks of those who fought in the last war are thinning, but others are joining them—many of them are severely disabled, not least because of Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, we have those who have served in the locally recruited regiment, the Ulster Defence Regiment, now the Royal Irish Regiment, and the regular Army. Those people have suffered, some of them grievously, and many of them are paralysed as a result of attacks. The victims and their dependants will require care for many years to come. I want that care to be delivered as swiftly, sympathetically and efficiently as possible. If we can have a one-stop shop, so much the better.
A one-stop shop is needed because there are so many agencies—all of us who have contact with ex-service personnel chase around the many agencies. The British Legion does a tremendous job, but it would be much easier for us if we had a one-stop shop to which we could direct our inquiries, be satisfied that they would be followed up and sensible, sympathetic conclusions reached as swiftly as possible.
When we come into the Chamber we pass through the Churchill arch, a symbol of what happens when one forgets defence. I fear that far too often we walk through that arch without thinking about the reason why it is there and the memory that it is supposed to call to mind. Far too often we forget the duty that we owe to those who fought for and served their country in the war, and whose dependants are still with us—many of their lives have been shattered by the experience of defending the freedoms that we enjoy. We could not be here today as a free nation were it not for the sacrifices made, and we should discharge our debt.

Mr. Oliver Heald: I start by joining in the tributes paid to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) for raising this important subject today. I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer), both of whom do so much for the Royal British Legion. In my constituency we are proud to have successful legions in Royston, Hitchin, Letchworth and the villages. At the recent commemoration in St. Albans abbey, they were very much to the fore, marching proudly behind their banners.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) spoke about the 50th anniversary of D-day. We were all touched when we saw those men marching with pride in themselves and their country, often bowed with age and supporting old comrades. For those of us of the younger generation who did not serve, it showed us a pride in country and a comradeship from which we should learn and which we should not forget.
Another aspect that shone through those celebrations was a pride in practical endeavour and in getting the job done. We should not forget that either. It was not just a question of pride in country and passion for freedom; it was also a job well done. I cannot see that the motion does any more than provide a certain recognition of that. In this place we recognise the sacrifices and endeavours of our fathers and their comrades-in-arms, but would a Ministry or sub-Department really have any practical purpose beyond recognition? I find it hard to believe that it would achieve very much.
The sub-Department for former service men's affairs has been described in this debate as a one-stop shop. Is it seriously proposed that when a service man left the services he would go to this sub-Department's office? If so, would it be sited in London, or in the regions—or would it be grafted on to the housing departments of each council, or perhaps the employment departments?
Or is the Ministry merely designed to be an expediter? Another explanation that has been offered is that the various Departments will still deal with matters as they do now, but that there will be a Minister whom people can harry and ask about their various applications. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe suggested the idea of a hospital monitor; there would be no further problems in

our hospitals for former service men, because this Minister would monitor the position and ensure that none cropped up.
Another description of the new post was that it would act as a focal point. Again I ask: what is the Ministry for? Is it necessary? I cannot believe that it is. It would end up, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) suggested, as little more than a post office. A former service man would enter this one-stop shop and say that he had a housing problem. Instead of his application being made to the housing department, as it would usually be, it would be sent to the former service men's Department, which in turn would apply to the housing department again. That would just add to bureaucracy. The same would apply to someone who wanted a war pension or an enhanced war pension. He would apply to the new Department, which would in turn apply to Norcross. What is the point?
If a former service man wanted a job, instead of going to the jobcentre he would go to the new former service men's Department, which would refer him to the jobcentre. I cannot see how that will achieve anything practical.
Is it really a proper recognition of the efforts of those who have done so much for our country to introduce an extra layer of bureaucracy? Is it preferable to make the Departments and agencies that we have work better? I concede immediately that improvements can always be made in every Department of state, but whether we need another layer of bureaucracy is extremely doubtful.
I am also worried that the idea might lead to former service men being regarded in a rather unhappy light by other members of the public. A well-trained person who leaves the services has the benefit of the access to excellence marketing scheme of registration, which means that he can go to the services' employment network. That network receives 700 new vacancies a month at the moment, and 80 per cent. of service men are being placed in work within three months.
Why then is it necessary to add a new Department; and what would other young people who are looking for work think if, in addition to all the provision already made for them, service men had an extra Department that seemed to be giving them even more of an advantage? If service men are treated as requiring special help, and hence not as competitive with other young people in the job market, might that not undercut the excellent scheme which is already doing so much for them?
No parliamentary motion can be comprehensive, of course, but this motion hardly reflects all the provision for service men that already exists. The War Pensions Agency, Norcross, does a fantastic job for former service men. It recognises their concerns and is expert in their needs. When I have tried to contact Norcross on behalf of constituents, I have always found it extremely helpful.
Crown immunity, which used to be a thorny issue, has been resolved, so that, if a service man has a legitimate claim against the Ministry of Defence, it can now be brought. There are new resettlement training cost grants of £500, and they provide former service men with additional help. There are eight new regional resettlement centres. I have already mentioned the access to excellence scheme and the services' employment network. All those benefits have been provided in recent years for former service men.
On top of that, there is the work of the Royal British Legion, whose offices help so many people. Then there is the work of the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families


Association, SSAFA, which has not been mentioned thus far—[Interruption.]—although I now see that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) is carrying his card. SSAFA is a point of contact for former service men in need, with access to regimental funds and assistance. It provides a national service.
Certainly there may be a need for change, but there is surely no need for more bureaucracy, which will do nothing to help the situation.

Sir Jim Spicer: We would all agree with most of what my hon. Friend is saying, but his point about the bureaucracy is not what those of us who advocate this approach want. We do not wish to interfere with or to break down the current system, but there must be an ultimate port of call for those cases that include a problem—and there will always be problems.
Joe Bloggs, perhaps at the bottom end of the scale, scratches his head and says, "I don't know where to go or who to get in touch with. I don't know about the Royal British Legion or SSAFA—they don't hang around on my doorstep." He will be able to pick up a pen and write to the Minister for former service men, Whitehall. That office will then pass on Joe Bloggs' letter to someone who will expedite it and who will make sure that all these other marvellous Departments do their jobs properly and without delay. From time to time, there are delays that I find inexplicable and claims that should be dealt with in days take months to process. I promise my hon. Friend that we are not looking for a new bureaucracy.

Mr. Heald: I do not believe that my hon. Friend was in his place when I paid tribute to his work for the Royal British Legion. I accept his point that there are often unnecessary delays. If that is so, we as Members of Parliament should press Ministers hard on the complaints that we receive from our constituents. My hon. Friend is well known for doing that, but particularly on behalf of ex-service men. He cited the example of the 30 ex-parachutists whom he helped in recent years. The bastion for members of the public who need protection is ourselves. At least, I believe that that is our role.

Mr. Martin Redmond: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to say a few words in this important debate. I was disgusted at some of the negative thinking expressed by Conservative Members. I am confident that there is a problem. Otherwise, we would not be debating the topic.
I declare an interest as a citizen of the British Isles who is eternally grateful to the men and women who fought and lost their lives, or who returned crippled with a variety of diseases or with shattered limbs. Pain, torment and torture was the lot of the people who were sent to fight. Wars are inevitably caused by politicians pontificating on why this or that is wrong. When they make a mess of it, the clarion call goes out to the citizens, "Rally round the flag and defend what we say is right."
I pay tribute to the Royal British Legion's marvellous work nationally and locally. It performs many acts of kindness that go unrecorded, and which should really be the responsibility of the Government. I hope that the Government will try to repay the debt of gratitude that we

owe to those lads and lasses. The secretary of Rossington Royal British Legion asked me if I would take part in this debate, and of course I was only too happy to say that I would be present, in the hope that I would have an opportunity to say a few words.
When the bands play, flags wave and cheers go up, our troops are urged to march to battle to defend the country's interests—but when asked to defend their interests, we are a little like Shylock: we do not really want to know how we can repay our debt of gratitude to those men and women. Some people in this country follow the train of thought that the former Prime Minister caused a war to win a general election. The present Government above all ought to repay their debt of gratitude.
I have seen some of the war graves in France, where there are rows upon rows of white crosses. Anyone who doubts the need to repay our debt of gratitude ought to see those white crosses. The Government should meet the Royal British Legion to discuss how the problems can be resolved—whether through a Ministry or an ombudsman. By discussing a problem, one can often get shot of it problem.

Sir Jim Spicer: The hon. Gentleman does himself and his party no great service coming here two and a half hours after the debate started and intervening without having heard earlier contributions. So far, speeches made from both sides of the House have been reasoned and responsible, and designed to bring about some solution that will meet every case. As an ex-service man, I take grave exception to the hon. Gentleman claiming that we do nothing for our ex-service men. That is the biggest load of nonsense that I have heard in the House in a long time.

Mr. Redmond: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's contribution. I listened intently to his speech. The Chair would vouch that I was present to hear the hon. Gentleman's contribution. I was making the point that the negative thinking of hon. Members seated behind the hon. Gentleman leads me to doubt the Government's sincerity in wanting to repay their debt of gratitude to people who served this country.

Mr. Peter Luff: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Redmond: No. Although I left the Chamber for a short time, I have listened intently to the debate, and I certainly did not interrupt any other speaker.
There are many reasons that the Government should discuss with the Royal British Legion ways of helping people who served this country. In another place, there is a painting of the battle of Waterloo and another of Trafalgar. The pain and suffering that they depict are typical of the pain and suffering that follows war after war after war.
We shall never get shot of wars, so there will always be a need to help people who participate in them. People do not fight in wars because they hate Germany. Who are our enemies? In the two great wars, Germany was our enemy and America was our ally—but America was our enemy in the war of independence.
An uncle of mine was taken prisoner during the second world war and suffered stomach problems as a result of his poor diet. Nevertheless, he was proud to have taken part in the defence of the realm. Ex-service men who suffered atrocities in Japanese captivity are seeking compensation


from the Japanese Government. However that may be done, a Department of the sort proposed could assist those former soldiers to pursue their claim.
The rundown in the armed services has already been mentioned. There is a desperate need to help people who looked forward to a lifetime in the services but who are no longer required. The country owes those people a debt of gratitude, but we have been trying to avoid it. We owe it to them to set up a dialogue with the Royal British Legion to resolve the problem.

Mr. Peter Luff: It is with some sadness that I follow the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond). His speech struck a negative note which disgusted me, and which contrasted sharply with the other speeches that we have heard from hon. Members on both sides of the House. I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on his remarks, read the report of the earlier speeches and decide whether what he said was justified.
I now strike a slightly lighter note myself, and suggest that the positive nature of the speeches that we have heard so far may reflect the debt owed by the House to the ex-service men who act as Doorkeepers and Deputies to the Serjeant-at-Arms? It would be a brave Member of Parliament who said anything negative about ex-service men with them listening.
We all share another debt to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) for his thoughtful and sincere speech, and I pay tribute to the work of the Royal British Legion in my county. The county chairman, Mr. John Kimberley, has been a great help to me in sorting out my thinking on this important and difficult issue. I know that all the branches of the legion in my constituency—sadly, I am not an honorary member of any of them, but perhaps we can put that right—support the spirit of the motion.
In Worcester, we are acutely aware of the debt we owe to our ex-service men and women. This year saw the 200th anniversary of the Worcester Yeomanry and the 300th anniversary of the Worcestershire Regiment, both of which were celebrated in Worcester cathedral earlier in the year. No one who stood outside the Guildhall, as I did, and watched the march past of the veterans of the Worcester Regiment and its successors—formed by amalgamation—could have failed to be deeply moved by the pride and dignity that they showed. It inspired enormous emotion in us all.
I am too young to have served in conflict. Indeed, I have never served in any armed force, but I married into a service family and my mother was one of the ARP wardens who made such an important contribution during the second world war. My father—who would be 100 years old this month if he were alive—fought at Gallipoli with the Berkshire Yeomanry, in Palestine with the Imperial Camel Corps and then with the Worcester Yeomanry.
That fact alone has given me an acute recognition of the enormous debt we owe, not only to the victims of the second world war but to those of the first. I am particularly impressed by the strength of the constituency lobbying that I received on the issue, and the excellent way in which the Royal British Legion and similar organisations campaign for their members.
The motion refers to

the care, welfare and interests of ex-service people".
Contrary to the impression that the hon. Member for Don Valley seems to have, hon. Members on both sides of the House believe in that. However, it also mentions the
pressing need for a sub-Department of Ex-Service Affairs".
While we may be unanimous on the first part of the motion, the second has proved slightly more controversial.
The hon. Member for Thurrock seemed to be moving away from that demand to a rather more modest request for a designated Minister, which is not in the motion. I must say that—for the reasons given by many of my hon. Friends—that concept commends itself to me more than the more ambitious one on the Order Paper. We need to ask a number of questions about the need for a sub-Department.
First—I warn the hon. Member for Don Valley that this is a rhetorical question—do ex-service men and women form a special category because of what they have done and experienced? The hon. Member for Thurrock spoke of the debt that the nation owes to people who have risked all, or been prepared to risk all, in conflicts in all parts of the globe—in two world wars, in regional conflicts from Suez to the Falklands, from Korea to the Gulf and, of course, in Northern Ireland and Bosnia. We must never allow our country to forget that.
We are not just talking about a generation that has passed away as time takes its toll; we are talking a group of brave men and women whose numbers, in a dangerous and tragic world, will increase continually for the foreseeable future. As the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) pointed out, they may be few but they will always be with us.
Here is a difficult question: do those people constitute a unique group? I think they are. The scale of what many were prepared to do—lay down their lives for our freedom—is uniquely great. But how much separates ex-service people from the devotion, dedication and risk associated with many other members of society—policemen and women, prison officers, firemen, ambulance drivers and paramedics and even members of the Merchant Navy, whose officers and ratings have served our country so bravely in war and peace? The hon. Member for Thurrock reminded us of that last category.
Ultimately, I do think that ex-service men and women demand our special support and concern, because of the special risk that they have, as it were, strapped to their shoulders. But does that merit a sub-Department?
Service life has its special characteristics, which many hon. Members have said. Its continuity and inwardness may ill-prepare service people for the outside world; decision-making and initiative can sometimes be frustrated; there is always a superior on whom to rely in the well-ordered service structures, which does not apply to the world that the rest of us are forced to inhabit; the exercise of authority is always unquestioned, which is pretty rare in the rest of society, and certainly in the House of Commons.
All that means that people leaving service life need special help to adapt to civvy street—but does it require a special Department? Is it not the job of a responsible employer, which I think the Ministry of Defence is, to deal with the problems before those people leave?
We must not forget that today's volunteers know the risk that they are taking when they sign up, and—at least when not on active service—enjoy a reasonably comfortable life. Today, they leave the services well


trained in skills that are often readily transferable to the private sector as a result of courses that they pursue during their careers with the Army, the Navy or the Royal Air Force. That does not suggest a need for a special Department.
Do ex-service people have special needs after they have left the services, meaning that they form a special category for which a sub-Department is necessary? An issue very much in my mind at present is mobility for disabled ex-service men. Let us look at public transport.
Recently, one of my constituents was frustrated in his effort to reach Normandy for the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of D-day because his motorised tricycle could not be accommodated on a British Rail train. I was extremely sorry about that. My constituent was offered help with the journey by, among others, Mr. Richard Branson; but, sadly, he had already cancelled his hotel bookings.
That man's problem, however, was not actually an ex-service problem. British Rail has worked hard on disability issues—I believe that it is the best in Europe in terms of access for disabled people. He was a victim of a problem that could have befallen any of my constituents lucky enough to have access to one of these marvellous new machines.
We should consider the question of cash compensation for disability. The British Legion and service men bring me examples of problems with disability living allowance and other benefits, but they mirror the problems of other constituents who do not have the strength of an excellent organisation such as the Legion behind them. The same is true generally in relation to benefits.
The Legion does a wonderful job in representing the interests of its members—as, in my constituency, does the Worcester citizens advice bureau, Age Concern, the disability information service, DIAL and the Worcester welfare rights centre for those who were not necessarily service men. If service personnel need more advice before discharge, that is the job of the MOD as a responsible employer, not a sub-Department after they have left the service.
I was interested to hear what the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) said about the War Pensions Agency. It is clear that it has won the confidence of its clients.
I fully support the view that pensions should be generous. Lobbying by the Legion is the best guarantee of that, and not necessarily the creation of a sub-Department. The War Pensions Agency is doing a first-rate job, but I wonder whether its title is not a slight misnomer. Having read the document "How to Claim", which was produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Southport, I believe that in the agency we already have something pretty close to a sub-Department for ex-service affairs under the stewardship of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, Viscount Astor.
I should like to discuss one aspect of ex-service pensions—the treatment of widows. Only last week, I received a representation in my constituency surgery from an ex-service man who married his wife after he had finished serving in the Army. I understand that, if he predeceases his wife, she will not receive any pension as a

result of his Army service, yet the lateness of his marriage owed much to the fact that his service took him around the world and denied him the opportunity to marry sooner.
There is something to be said for reconsidering that aspect of pension provision in the armed services, to see whether it is possible to give some enhanced security to widows of ex-service men, even if they were not married to them during their period of service. I hope that the MOD will be able to tell the House that experience in this area matches best practice in the private sector.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) spoke about housing issues. It is true that ex-service men and women are thrown on to the housing market in mid-career, but the problems that that causes are the responsibility of the services before service personnel leave the service, and the Government have taken a number of important initiatives—the joint services housing advice office, the service home saving scheme, the discounted sale scheme for surplus married quarters and the nomination schemes for housing associations that are sold or leased surplus MOD property.
The Legion says that many who have served need counselling after the inevitably horrifying experiences that they can, even now, have serving in our armed services. Again, that is the responsibility of the services as a responsible employer, and not of a new Department for ex-service affairs.
I think hon. Members agree that ex-service men and women have special status. Does that demand structural change in Government? I conclude that, on balance, it probably does not. The Legion, which was founded three years after the first world war, exists precisely to further the interests of ex-service men and women and it is doing a splendid job. The case studies that I have been provided with by the Legion to justify the creation of a sub-Department have probably, if anything, proved rather the opposite—that, because of the excellence of the Legion's work, the need for a sub-Department does not exist.
I am instinctively more sympathetic to voluntary rather than state action. It is more flexible and more responsive. The moral pressure that the Legion can bring to bear on Members of Parliament and Departments is rather greater than the statutory pressure that a sub-Department would be able to bring to bear.
Apart from the Legion, other sources of help exist for ex-service men. We have had heard about the service benevolent funds, the regimental associations and the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen's Family Association. Taken together, that is a powerful network of assistance for ex-service men and women, the activities of which we all welcome.
The Government have done a great deal more than perhaps the hon. Member for Don Valley suggested. The War Pensions Agency is a powerful force for good for ex-service men and women. It has reviewed the guidance on the priority that should be given in the health service to all pensioners. It provides resettlement packages for those who are invalided out of the services, and for those who retire early there is the tri-service resettlement organisation.
One very powerful sub-Department of ex-service affairs already exists—this House. No hon. Member will not give the highest possible priority in his or her constituency work to the needs of constituents from the services. We are a powerful force for ex-service men and women.
Finally, there is the question of what such a sub-Department would do. It would provide co-ordination at the centre, but, as a number of hon. Members have said, all the assistance that is delivered to ex-service men would still be delivered through a plethora of agencies and 17 Government Departments, just as at present.
All that a sub-Department would do is add an extra tier of bureaucracy for ex-service people and their organisations to deal with. It would create a real danger of buck-passing. Sixteen of the 17 Departments that do not have the sub-Department will breathe a big sigh of relief and will do less than they presently do for ex-service men and women.
All the flak for alleged Government failures would not be directed at individual Ministers, but at the sub-Department. Other Ministers who are currently subject to all the marvellous pressure from Members of Parliament, the Royal British Legion and elsewhere, would get off scot-free. Given the strength of the lobby for ex-service men and women, having ex-service issues spread around is a good thing, and delivers the best outcome for ex-service men and women.
I advised on Government relations before coming to the House. I always prefer to deal with an issue that involves more than one Department. That often enhances the chances of success. Governments are not monoliths, but diverse structures. If one gets a no from one Department which is the only one responsible for an issue, that is the end of the matter, because there is nowhere else to go. But if other Departments are involved, getting a no is not the end of the matter. I worry that creating a sub-Department could, on ex-service issues, turn the Government into a monolith and make it more difficult to win issues on behalf of ex-service men and women.
Having said all that, the question remains, what should be done? I would not die in a ditch fighting the idea of a sub-Department if that was what ex-service organisations really want; we have to listen to that. However, I believe that such a move could be counter-productive. Perhaps there is another solution that goes some way towards meeting the concerns and that would not have the adverse consequences of a fully blown sub-Department. The hon. Member for Thurrock made the rather more modest suggestion of a designated Minister with prime responsibility for ex-service issues.
We are already pretty near that position, because direct responsibility is held de facto by only two Ministers: my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, from whom I always receive excellent replies on ex-service issues, and my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security. I find the service from them excellent.
Perhaps one of them could have prime responsibility for ex-service issues, and the role of dealing specifically with ex-service organisations and their concerns. I do not mean a more general, broad-brush postbox for anyone who had a concern, but a means by which organisations such as the Royal British Legion and SSAFA could say to that person, "This is the problem; can you sort it in the machine?" Perhaps we could think about that.
The veterans deserve a special status in our society. That is best guaranteed still by ensuring that they get the best advice and assistance when they leave the service, and by ensuring that the benefits and health care on which they depend are delivered efficiently and fairly to the whole of society. The Government's reforms are achieving that.
Ex-service men and women tend to be prudent people, but they often have relatively low savings. My constituency is full of such people and such households. Their prudence often cuts them off from benefits and they feel aggrieved as a result. Helping those people, from whatever walk of life they come, will bring real benefits to them.
In the meantime, I welcome our commitment to protect pensions from the impact of VAT on fuel, our success in improving the health service, and the developing pragmatic policies on improving mobility and access for the disabled. All that will bring real benefits to ex-service men, without the need for a sub-Department.
There is one thing that we can and should do for our ex-service men and women. We must ensure that we do all we can to maintain Remembrance day and the dignity that goes with it. We must remind our young people that Remembrance day and the needs and problems of ex-service men and women are not just about a bitter trench war which began 80 years ago or about a war against totalitarianism and organised racism which ended 50 years ago, but about all the brave men and women in the British armed forces who have given their lives in more recent wars around the world, always in defence of this country, its interests and values, and who continue to risk their lives in that same cause even as we debate the motion today.

Mr. Alan Duncan: The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who is temporarily out of the Chamber, introduced his topic in a refreshing way. The manner in which he has championed his cause has been well-regarded on both sides of the House. Indeed, many people will look to him to champion other causes because of the way in which he has handled this one.
The hon. Gentleman treated us to wonderful Churchillian tones, which are still ringing in my ears. It was a refreshing contrast to the many pacifists and former and current members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament who share the Labour Benches with him. I hope that I am right in saying that he has never been a member of such an organisation, and therefore is not open to the charge of hypocrisy for having championed this cause. I pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff)—come Remembrance Day, I hope that Labour Members will wear a red poppy and not some trivial white emblem in their lapels.
Ex-service men are special because what of they have sacrificed, or have been prepared to sacrifice, for their country. By "ex-service men", I mean both ex-service men and ex-service women. I and, I suspect, many of them would not want me to make a concession to political correctness in adding "women" to "service men" whenever I mention them.
The Royal British Legion does an enormous amount of work for the welfare of service men, and every hon. Member will have people in their constituencies who put in hour after hour looking after their welfare. A little thing we could all do, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) said earlier when I waved my SSAFA card, is to have a credit card that gives a bob or two to such a cause whenever we buy our champagne in Threshers, or whatever. That would go a long way towards helping an important cause.
I have a simple point. Is the motion a good idea that risks becoming bad government? I fear that it is. Many good ideas are floating around; there are many good and worthy causes, but the challenge in this House is to ensure that they are translated into good law and good administration. My fear about the creation of a sub-Department in one Department or another is that that risks converting a very good cause into poor administration—indeed, as my hon. Friend for Worcester said, into inferior administration. It is our responsibility in this House and this debate to ensure that that does not happen.
The hon. Member for Thurrock said that ex-service men today are not just the veterans of, largely and increasingly, the second world war, but comprise a number of much younger people who have served a few years in the services and, because of their preference to change career, or because of "Options for Change", are now, even at the age of 30 or 35, in need of a good deal of help. The hon. Gentleman implicitly said that even the younger people should have some sort of special help. The problem with the younger ones in particular is that they are as much a part of a social security, national health service or housing problem as any other citizen, be he or she a former policeman, a former nurse or whatever.
The problem with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is that, in reality, he is saying that, in our administration of the concerns of ex-service men, we should divert all their applications for help through a specific sub-Department just because they are former members of the services. Former policemen would not have a similar sub-Department; they would have to look to all the various Departments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North said, it is an important role of individual Members of Parliament to refer the cases of their ex-service constituents to the Department that they know has responsibility for those concerns.
What would we actually get if a sub-Department were set up—be it in the Department of Social Security or the Ministry of Defence—specifically for ex-service men? We would end up complicating the manner in which the help they desperately need is delivered. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester said, we would add a layer of bureaucracy which would work to the detriment of what they want to see.
We have heard quite a lot of jargon this morning. We heard that we want someone to "expedite" matters, we want something to be the "focal point", and we want "one-stop shops". That is all very well but we want action, not jargon. My fear is that, if we create a diversionary loop through a new sub-Department for all the concerns of those individuals, we will hinder the machinery of government in helping them, rather than assist it.
What we would do is make the Minister with special responsibility a glorified post box. If individuals or, indeed, Members of Parliament write directly to the Minister, a few days would be added before the letter pleading for some assistance for a constituent ends up on the desk of the Minister responsible. It would be at least two, three, or four days, or perhaps a week, before the letter went from the Minister with special responsibility to the Department of Social Security, a sub-Department of the Department of Social Security, or a special part of the Ministry of Defence.
That would not help the individual we are trying to help. We would create a glorified postman in ministerial guise. He would simply process letters from individuals or Members of Parliament to the Department. He would be a postman who had not a red van but simply a red box. I cannot see how that would help.
I urge the hon. Member for Thurrock, who has been an appealing champion of an important cause in which I think all Tory Members share, to reconsider whether the cause that he is championing will translate into better government if his proposal is put into play. I do not think it will. We do not want any symbolism; we want good government for the interests of all ex-service men, of whom we have many examples in our constituencies.
One point on which I agree with the hon. Gentleman is that of the casting of medals for national service. Fortunately, we live in a time of peace, by and large. We have just celebrated 50 years of the beginning of peace. There are people with pride who have put in a lot of time and their careers, to put themselves at risk, to guarantee that peace. Often, they are as important as those who put their lives at risk in combat.
As for the wearing of medals, which are able to be worn through the generations, it is important that we recognise those who have kept the peace as much as those who have fought in war.

Mr. Mackinlay: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his gracious comments. In a sense, he attributes too much power and influence to me. The important fact is that more than 200 hon. Members support the motion that there should be an ex-service affairs Ministry, including those who have served in the armed forces and, indeed, seen conflict. That is a powerful argument which the hon. Gentleman and I need to be mindful of when considering the issue. The fact that others of different generations are pressing for a sub-Department is persuasive.

Mr. Duncan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he says. The point is that, when an early-day motion is put before hon. Members which supports such a worthy cause as those who work for the Royal British Legion and the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen's Families Association, and those who benefit from their work, it would appear churlish not to sign it. When it comes to discussing the specifics, we are duty bound to stop and think, and work out whether the hon. Gentleman's proposal will make the serving of their interests by Government better or worse. I fear that it would not be better.
As I have said today, the hon. Gentleman has been a worthy champion. I believe that everyone on the Conservative Benches would congratulate him. He has raised the profile of the issue. He has done it in such a cheerful and Churchillian way that perhaps he would consider coming across to this side of the House in a manner which would serve to improve our street cred. I hope that, in the ministerial answer, the points that I have raised will be taken up.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way before he sits down?

Mr. Duncan: I have finished.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Has the—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman was not given way to.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I wish to take a few moments in this debate on a subject of interest and importance. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) referred to a medal for national service men. I have some vested interest in that, having been a national service man. If such a medal were introduced, I would be one of those in the House who would be eligible to receive it.
The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) referred to the attendants and badge messengers in the House. I have slightly more reason to be aware of their presence in the House than others perhaps have. When I did my national service, some of them were sergeants in the Royal Marines. They were not quite so polite at times on the parade ground as they are when I now pass through the Lobby and come into the Chamber. They are courteous and make this place work in the successful way that it does. Certainly, at that time they were doing their job and I was doing my job. I did two years of service in the Royal Marines.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton asked why we should move along the lines suggested in the motion. It is not simply because my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) has moved the motion. It is not because 200 Conservative and Opposition Members of Parliament have supported the early-day motion that has been on the Order Paper throughout this Session. Nor is it because I believe that it is the right thing to do. The reason why I support the motion today is that it is overwhelmingly the view of those people who gave valued service during the war and fought for the type of society in which we live and to defeat fascism so that we could have a free Europe in which we could express our views, even at times when we strongly differ in our views, that we should set up a sub-Department of ex-service affairs.
Earlier this month I attended some of the D-day commemorations, as I am sure that many other hon. Members did. I went to a service at Blackburn cathedral. I am a member of the Royal Naval Association in Burnley because there is no Royal Marine Association. The people in the East Lancashire Royal Marine Association managed to persuade me to join that association while I was at that service. The people taking part with great pride in the commemoration, marching with their banners and bands, were clearly of the view that we needed a Minister such as my hon. Friend's motion calls for and the type of structure referred to in the motion. I believe that if that is what they believe, there must be a case for such a sub-Department. On that basis, I strongly support the motion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock made some important points. I want to touch quickly on one or two of them. He referred to the nuclear test veterans and the Japanese ex-prisoners of war. In my constituency, l have an active Far East Prisoners of War Association which represents those people who were prisoners of war of the Japanese during the second world war. Those men and their families have suffered for so many years as a result of the way in which they were treated. They certainly believe that we need to have the type of Minister and sub-Department that we are discussing.
I would especially like to add one point to those made in my hon. Friend's opening speech. Many of us remember that, in the early weeks of the present Prime Minister's term of office, some of the first questions that he answered in 1990 were on the two issues of the creation of a Minister and a Department for ex-service men's affairs. He certainly gave hope to many people that action would be taken. People are still trying to prove conclusively whether the suffering of nuclear test veterans can be attributed to the tests. The benefit of the doubt should be given to the people who took part in those tests.
The compensation for prisoners of war agreed between the two Governments in the 1950s is derisory and something needs to be done about it. Obviously, I do not view this debate as one in which one would put those arguments in great detail. I mention them only because it clearly illustrates the need for a Minister to deal with those problems and ensure that speedy conclusions are reached, so that people receive the justice and respect that they deserve before it is too late.
We must remember that, year by year, the veterans die, as I know all too well because one of my uncles, who lived in Burnley and who served all through the war in the Royal Navy, died on Friday last week and was paid great respect by the Royal Naval Association at his funeral on Wednesday. The people concerned are getting older and it is important to reach a speedy decision to ensure that they receive the justice to which they feel—and we all should feel—they are entitled for what they gave for this country during the second world war.
In an intervention during my hon. Friend's opening speech, I referred to one part of the letter that I received from the Royal British Legion in Burnley. A point was clearly put in its letter, which said:
we lag behind the rest of our wartime allies"—
In brackets after that sentence, it said, "and enemies". It is significant that so many war veterans feel that, having fought for peace, for the type of world and the democracy that we have today, they have not received the same respect and treatment as some of the people who fought with the axis powers in that war. If they feel that, it is a tragedy and we should try to remedy the situation.
Mr. Schofield, the chairman of the Burnley branch, went on to say:
as the D-day commemoration happenings proved, we are first rate at pageantry. Let us be in the forefront for welfare.
That sums up the views of ex-service men throughout the country. They believe that it is time that we had a Minister to ensure that they get everyone to which they are entitled. That does not mean that I am criticising the War Pensions Agency, as I am not: I accept that it does much work. Also, obviously, the Royal British Legion and the regimental ex-service associations do tremendous work for their members.
Nevertheless, there is a gap—and we have the opportunity to ensure that that gap is filled. Hon. Members have referred to the 17 Departments involved in different aspects of ex-service men's affairs. Let us have one Minister who has the power to ensure that, whatever Department he is dealing with, he is given priority and that matters are dealt with urgently.
I give the Minister one suggestion. We all know that a Government reshuffle is likely some time this month. Let him draw the attention of the Prime Minister to one ministerial post which is used for various functions from time to time—that of the Chancellor of the Duchy of


Lancaster. It is a Cabinet post which has been used at times by the chairman of the Conservative party and by others. When the reshuffle takes place, that office—which exercises certain powers and responsibilities in the Duchy of Lancaster, although not enough to warrant a full-time position in the Cabinet—should deal with ex-service personnel matters.
If the Government took that bold step, ex-service men would start to believe that they will get the justice to which they are entitled and be treated in this country with the same respect and be held in the same pride as they command from other nations. That is what hon. Members should call for.
I agree with many of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock and others, and I would not wish to prolong the debate, except to say that this is a valid motion. The Government must accept that 1994 is the time to put matters right before it is too late.

1 pm

Mr. Donald Anderson: The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) made a number of good points, not least in drawing our attention to the fact that the work of representing our ex-service men and women is already being done in a commendable way by organisations such as the Royal British Legion and the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen's Families Associations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has already said, however, it is the Royal British Legion that believes that something more should be done, and we should consider its argument weightily and with respect.
The starting point of the debate must surely be one of consensus, because everyone has congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) on his good fortune in the ballot and on his initiative in choosing this subject for debate. He has also been congratulated on the way on which he has consistently argued the case for ex-service personnel. By doing so, he has joined those on both sides of the House who, over the years, have drawn attention to the special needs of our service personnel.
One thinks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) who is, I believe, a consultant to the Royal British Legion, the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) and others, who have, over years, consistently championed the cause of our ex-service men in a non-partisan manner.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) and I are joint honorary parliamentary advisers to the Royal British Legion. I should like to make one other point briefly. There has been talk of our just having celebrated almost 50 years of peace, but the service community does not regard what happened this year as a celebration; it was seeking a dignified commemoration of the 50th anniversary of D-day.

Mr. Anderson: I believe it is fair to say that that is what it got, eventually. I hope that all hon. Members will recognise, however, that those concerns represented an unhappy chapter in the arrangements. May I say in a non-partisan way that the misunderstandings, which were not fomented for partisan reasons, arose because of the

understandable sensitivities of ex-service men about their own dead and fallen comrades. They believed that there was nothing to celebrate, but a great deal to commemorate.
The problems associated with the D-day arrangements illustrate that that sad saga and the misunderstandings might have been averted if there had been a Minister with specific responsibilities for ex-service men. If we had a Minister who could keep in regular touch with the Royal British Legion and organisations such as the Normandy Veterans, misjudgments such as those that appear to have been made at an early stage in the arrangements for commemorating the D-day landings would be less likely to occur.
We should remember that when men went over the top in the first world war and when our people fought together during the D-day landings, they did not ask each other on which side of the political divide they fell. We should respond in exactly the same spirit when we consider the way in which the House should deal with the affairs of ex-service men.
Sadly, relatively few hon. Members today have direct knowledge of service life. No one under the age of 55 will have done national service, and relatively few hon. Members have served in our regular forces. There is therefore an increasing gulf between those who have experienced service life and Members of Parliament

Mr. Duncan: Although those of us who are young may not have direct experience of service life, some of us come from service families. So the non-partisan understanding which the hon. Gentleman wants in the House can come down through the generations.

Mr. Anderson: Yes, but there is a great difference between the ethos that comes from a service family and direct experience of service life.
The motion has broad support. It constitutes an important recognition of the debt we owe to our service people. All those who have spoken have favoured more dialogue but expressed caution about how we should respond to that call administratively. We all clearly recognise that this is a timely debate in view of the commemoration of both the Italian and Normandy landings.
May I recall a personal experience? I worked on a farm near Caen for some time. During a fete held by several local villages, there was a procession to the local cemetery. As the only British person in the area, I was honoured to join local veterans in the procession. As a young man of about 19 looking at the British graves, I was struck by the large number of those who had fallen on the Normandy beaches who had been my age.
We are aware of the campaign that has been mounted so sensitively by the Royal British Legion and have much sympathy with the broad thrust of the argument. We recognise, as does the legion, that the issues involved cover several Ministries. As several hon. Members have said, that is part of the complexity of responding to the demand. Everyone recognises the real need for better co-ordination to deal with the many areas of interest to ex-service personnel.
I have mentioned the misunderstanding over the commemoration of the Normandy landings. Given the Government's response to the health problems of those who served in the Gulf, I wonder whether that could have been dealt with more sensitively had a Minister been


specifically responsible for the matter. Contrast their treatment with the treatment of veterans in the United States with what is deemed to be "Gulf war syndrome".
One hon. Member asked how housing problems of ex-service men differ from those of the general population of the same generation. The Ministry of Defence is currently carrying out an exercise relating to its estate and the housing in its control. The needs of ex-service men must be taken fully into account in that exercise. I accept that that is already being done to an extent. It is important that people already in the services make their contribution. But this issue is different.
The formation of life in the services differs greatly from that of civilians who may be looking for housing. There is a need, therefore, to feed in to the consideration of how that new housing trust should be organised—in terms of its priorities and ground rules—the concerns of ex-service men. That is where a Minister with specific responsibility for ex-service men could make an input.
There is a need for better co-ordination, particularly at a time when the services are being decreased in size. There are worries about the complexity of the benefits system. The decision to restrict, without adequate consultation, the compensation available for noise-induced deafness resulting from service in the forces is but one recent example of how a Minister with special responsibility might have averted the problems that have arisen.
It has been well recognised by all who have spoken today that there are difficulties in creating either a separate Department of State or a large bureaucracy in one of the existing Departments, because of the overlapping responsibilities. But the need to improve co-ordination must be taken seriously.
We are considering setting up a specific unit in the Ministry of Defence under a Minister whose departmental responsibilities will include looking after issues relevant to ex-service personnel. Such a ministerial appointment would give status and a new authority to those matters. The war pensions directorate established under the Department of Social Security will give a more focused and efficient service to service personnel. We shall monitor developments and listen carefully to the debate.
The point of consensus is that our priority must, at all times, be to provide the best service for those who have served this country at home and overseas. We must now consider how best to achieve that goal administratively, with full recognition of our debt and in full consultation with those who represent the interests of ex-service personnel, particularly the Royal British Legion.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), both on his good fortune in winning the ballot for the debate and on the stimulating and sympathetic way in which he marshalled his arguments in support of the motion. I thought that the House enjoyed his good-humoured and histrionic touches, which set a pleasant and constructive tone that lasted for almost all the debate. I also congratulate him on the timing of the debate, which takes place when the deeply moving scenes of the D-day commemoration events are still fresh in our memory. Those events, particularly the stirring parade of British veterans on the beach of Arromanches, where the

salute was taken by Her Majesty the Queen, reminded us, graphically and emotionally, of the tremendous debt that we owe to our former service personnel.
It is appropriate for me, on behalf of the Government, to quietly put on record the profound sense of gratitude and appreciation that the House, Government and country feel towards those who served their Queen and country in the armed forces. Their contributions to the security of the United Kingdom are well recognised in the pages of history, but our recognition must also take tangible and living forms in the day-to-day life of the present. An important part of that recognition is to know that our former service men and women must be properly, fairly and decently treated by the nation. That principle has been the common thread throughout the debate running between both sides of the House.
I sympathise with the spirit of what the hon. Member for Thurrock said, but there are small differences of emphasis and approach on the practical arrangements through which we should uphold that principle. I shall remind the House of the practical arrangements already in place for looking after our former service men and women, particularly in pensions, health and housing. After describing those arrangements, I will then try to answer the principal points raised in the debate, and then turn to the central question whether we need a sub-Department of State for this purpose.
In general, we attach great importance to the principle that former service personnel should integrate fully with the civilian population; equally we acknowledge that they have a unique place in our society, and special needs. The substantial administrative arrangements that the Government already have in place to meet those special needs show that we take the welfare of the veteran community very seriously.
I was pleased that gracious compliments were paid by hon. Members on both sides of the House to the work of the War Pensions Agency. It came into existence only in April this year, but it was just the latest step in a process of establishing an organisation specially dedicated to the delivery of pensions and welfare services to war-disabled pensioners, war widows, their dependants and carers.
The organisation has moved from being a directorate within the Benefits Agency, through the interim step of the war pensions unit, to the successful attainment of executive agency status in the Department of Social Security. The tributes paid to it by my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks), based on his experience of working with the agency, and by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), served to show how well regarded and successful the agency has been in carrying out its duties.
I thought, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff) had a point when he said that, as the agency is working so well, it is already fairly close to being a sub-Department for service men's affairs. There is some truth in that. The changes that we have implemented in recent years have helped to bring much greater efficiency in administration and improvement in the standard of services that we provide. The attainment of agency status is a beginning, not an end. The agency is committed to a programme of continual improvement in every aspect of its work. Already, claims are being handled much faster, there is a more personal approach and there are better communications—all of which help to meet war pensioners' expectations.

Mr. Alfred Morris: As the Minister has heard, I yield to no one in my admiration for the War Pensions Agency, from much experience of all its excellent work. What role could the agency as constituted have in dealing with the problems, for example, that arise from "Options for Change"—the employment problems, the training problems, and the housing problems of people who are leaving the services earlier than expected? I think that the ethos in the agency is very important, but it would most certainly say that, as constituted, it could not deal with the whole range of problems now dealt with by so many other Departments.

Mr. Aitken: The right hon. Gentleman is seeking to make the speech that he did not make earlier in the debate. I shall come to the question of ministerial responsibility for some of those other areas shortly.
I am glad that we can all pay tribute to the War Pensions Agency—and it is not an empty tribute, either. A recent customer perception survey showed that the agency has an 85 per cent. satisfaction rating among pensioners and other applicants.
I come now to the point about ministerial responsibility. My noble Friend Lord Astor, the DSS Minister with special responsibility for war pension matters, regularly meets and consults the central advisory committee on war pensions and takes a keen interest in the agency. He also meets representatives of local war pensions committees and other former service men's organisations. Lord Astor liaises closely on these matters with my noble Friend Lord Cranborne, Under-Secretary of State for Defence, who has a number of responsibilities: medals, resettlement, and armed forces' pensions. He is also the point of contact for former service men's groups, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, and queries about people's periods of service. From that list hon. Members can see that these two Ministers act as points of contact for a wide range of matters.
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe thought that he had delivered a knock-out blow when he complained that no one was doing a good job in bringing to wider attention the fact that special national health service priority could be given to war pensioners. It is certainly important that more general practitioners should know about existing priority arrangements.
On 16 May, my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health, Lady Cumberlege, announced that new health service guidelines were being issued that day, to reinforce an instruction issued in August 1992 on NHS treatment for those who have a pension or receive a gratuity for disablement caused by armed service. My noble Friend made it clear that the Government had written to trusts, hospitals and family health services authorities
to remind them they should give priority to war pensioners, both as in-patients and out-patients, for examination or treatment which relates to the conditions for which they receive a war pension.
Again, somewhere in Government a Minister is fulfilling the role that at least one hon. Member complained was not being performed.

Mr. Alfred Morris: The Minister is reading from notes that were written for him before I made my speech. I did not claim to score any particular goal, but reported what had been said to me and to the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) by officers of the Royal British Legion

the day before yesterday. They made it clear that many GPs and others in the medical profession seem not to know that guidance has been available for a long time. More people need to know about those arrangements.

Mr. Aitken: The right hon. Gentleman's thesis was that we need a new co-ordinating Minister to deliver the message to GPs, hospitals and patients that priority treatment is available. I was not quoting from notes written before the debate but from a Department of Health press release reporting that a Minister had already performed the task that the right hon. Gentleman complained had not been completed because there was no specially designated Minister. I was developing the thesis that many such tasks are already well covered by active Ministers in various Departments.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—argued that it was necessary to strengthen the work done by Departments for ex-service men and co-ordination between Government Departments. I view that concept sympathetically and am willing to have further dialogue with my hon. Friend and with the Royal British Legion.
I am glad that my hon. Friend's speech acknowledged that there are problems for the Government in a special sub-Department, the creation of which could cut across existing lines of communication—including that between Members of Parliament and their constituents. I am sure that any requests from my hon. Friend for a meeting with Ministers would be welcomed and acted upon with the usual courtesy.

Mr. Mackinlay: I welcome the Minister's remarks, and I appreciate that other matters are not in his gift. Will he recommend to the Prime Minister that he finds time to meet representatives of the Royal British Legion and of other ex-service organisations, informally but soon, to discuss issues raised this morning? A chat at 10 Downing street would be most welcome, appropriate and timely.

Mr. Aitken: I had better not assume for myself the role of my right hon. Friend's diary secretary, but I will certainly draw to his attention the remarks of the hon. Member for Thurrock and of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe—who asked me to draw the substance of the whole debate to my right hon. Friend's attention, in his capacity as head of the Government and of the machinery of government. In some ways, this is a machinery of government issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southport, who spoke with the authority of a former officer of the Gordon Highlanders, has had special dealings with the War Pensions Agency. I have already drawn attention to his tribute to that body. I am glad that he stressed the importance of the "How to Claim" booklet: we are working hard to ensure that the messages get across, and there has been a substantial jump in the number of claims being processed each year since the early 1990s as a result of more efficient work and better communication.
The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) announced what may have been an interesting new Liberal policy or just an interesting new Christchurch policy—I am not sure which. She suggested that there was a need to impose, by legislation, a statutory requirement on all local authorities in regard to war pensions disregard. That would cost money and have a budgetary impact. I was more worried, however, by another matter that was raised, amid


some controversy, on a point of order: according to the hon. Lady, the result of an appeal won by a constituent of hers had been disregarded by an unspecified agency. At one point she seemed to be saying that it was a Minister or the Government.
I assure the hon. Lady that there is no question of Ministers or the Government unfairly intervening in, or overturning, the decisions of statutory tribunals. Her allegation was unwise, and I hope that on reflection she will feel able to withdraw it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) emphasised the importance of resettlement programmes, after-sales service and housing. We have a proud record in that regard. We have taken a number of initiatives to encourage home ownership in the services and help to meet the needs of those leaving them: they include a new services home saving scheme, the sale of surplus married quarters at a discount and the establishment of a joint services housing advisory office.
That office was set up in September 1992, in response to a recommendation from our housing task force, to provide advice on the increasingly complex range of housing options open to service personnel. Its role is to provide a focal point—a phrase that has cropped up a number of times in the debate—giving housing advice to all serving personnel and to ex-service personnel who are still in married quarters.
It receives over 100 inquiries each week, and provides a comprehensive range of advice and guidance on housing options, working closely with local authorities and housing associations. It offers help and advice on the availability of local authority housing, housing association opportunities nationwide, MOD nominations to housing associations, the sale of surplus married quarters on the discount scheme and many other matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove asked a specific question about the housing trust that we are setting up. I can tell him that it will provide more flexibility in offering surplus married quarters for rent to ex-service personnel. The Government are taking well co-ordinated and effective action in regard to health, housing and war pension to help our ex-service men.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) told us in moving terms about his friend Mr. Leslie Bell of Moneymore, a 98-year-old gallant ex-soldier who is today commemorating the battle of the Somme on the battlefield. I am happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion by sending that gallant old soldier the good wishes of the House. The hon. Gentleman was right to remind us of the suffering of those who have served in the armed forces in Northern Ireland in both the regular Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment; I am glad that a voice from Northern Ireland was heard in that connection.
Like many other speakers, the hon. Member for Londonderry, East mentioned the need for a one-stop shop—another of the buzz words and phrases that kept appearing, along with "expediter" and "focal point". I was glad that his comments were followed by the realistic scepticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), who wondered whether such buzz words were likely to be any more effective than the existing machinery.
He emphasised—I was glad that someone did—how well the voluntary network of communication lines for ex-service men work, running through the regimental system, the British Legion, the Soldiers, Sailors and

Airmen's Families Association and at least 150 other organisations. In an interesting intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West mentioned the mythical complainant, Mr. Joe Bloggs, who had a welfare problem and who scratched his head and asked, "Where should I go?" The notion that Mr. Joe Bloggs should somehow go instantly to the Minister was flattering to Ministers, but my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North got it right when he emphasised that Members of Parliament are as good a focal point or expediter as anyone. Asking a Minister to replace or work alongside those good channels will weaken them.
The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) sounded the only discordant note in the debate when he said that we do nothing for ex-service men and that we need a new Ministry—the biggest claim of the day—or an ombudsman.
Any partisan spirit was soon dispelled by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), who talked about nuclear test veterans. We have all been concerned about those veterans. It must be emphasised again, however, that the incidence of death from cancer among veterans has been lower than among the general public and no higher than among any matched controlled group. That is shown in a report of the National Radiological Protection Board, which was published last December and a copy of which is in the House Library. It concluded that participation in the nuclear test programme has had no effect on life expectancy or the risk of developing cancer or any other fatal disease.

Mr. Donald Anderson: A potentially similar case exists in relation to Gulf war veterans. It is said that the United States Administration have changed their mind as a result of new medical evidence. Has the Ministry of Defence received such medical evidence and, if so, is it appraising it to see whether the Government should change their response?

Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has considered the matter carefully, but, to date, we have concluded that there is no single cause of the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The hon. Gentleman's point is inappropriate to this debate.
My hon. Friends the Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) and for Worcester got to the kernel of the debate—whether the creation of a new sub-Department of Government is a good idea. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton asked about the risks of such a proposal leading to bad government. He was scathing, as I have been, saying that action rather than jargon was required. We are getting action and I enjoyed the best phrase of the debate—that any such designated Minister would be a postman with a red box but without a red van. I enjoyed that very much.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester raised the philosophical question that lies at the heart of the issue: should we treat ex-service men differently from other members of society? As he said, they are in a unique category, but should their special status demand a change in the machinery of government? My answer to the thrust of the argument of the hon. Member for Thurrock is that, at first glance, it sounds attractive and interesting, but the attraction of establishing a single focal point with responsibility for all the needs of ex-service personnel is superficial. Like my hon. Friends the Members for


Worcester, for Rutland and Melton and for Hertfordshire, North, I am not sure that that is a practical option or that it would result in better service for those personnel.
A new Department, sub-Department or special unit devoted exclusively to ex-service affairs could not resolve all the problems experienced by ex-service personnel. It would have no executive responsibility or power. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove asked, what authority would a Minister have who was just designated and who did not have proper departmental powers? He would have a nice title and a nice red box, but he would have no clout and no authority.
Ex-service men and women would still have their various health, housing and pension concerns dealt with by the specialist organisations, such as the local authorities or the War Pensions Agency, as at present. The co-ordinating body or sub-Department envisaged by the hon. Member for Thurrock could only, as has been said many times, act as a post office between ex-service personnel and the appropriate executive authority. That approach would simply add another small tier of administration and bureaucracy to the present system.
I am sure that, on reflection, few if any veterans would really want that. In parliamentary terms, the Minister concerned would find it extremely difficult to answer to the House for areas falling within the responsibility of other Departments, and the initiatives and services that I have already outlined and to which we attach considerable importance could be undermined.
The hon. Member for Thurrock began his speech with some references to Belloc. I commend to him another set of lines by Hilaire Belloc:
And always keep a hold of Nurse
For fear of finding something worse.
That may be the answer to the hon. Gentleman.
One central fallacy ran through many speeches—the curious reference to the 17 Government Departments. That phrase crept into the circular sent out by the Royal British Legion. The word processor has whirred and the phrase has entered into the folklore of the debate. It presents a picture of the confused and oppressed veteran, lost in the Whitehall jungle wrestling with 17 different Departments. That is not merely an exaggeration, but a complete caricature. Almost nobody in the country wrestles with 17 Government Departments unless he is a Member of Parliament or the Cabinet Secretary—

Mr. William Ross: Or the Prime Minister.

Mr. Aitken: Or the Prime Minister.
The man on the Clapham omnibus—or the man in the Thurrock Royal British Legion club—would rarely have direct dealings with more than one or two Government Departments at the most. The notion that a veteran with a welfare problem has to bear in mind the Foreign Office, the Scottish Office, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Duchy of Lancaster, the Department of National Heritage and the Welsh Office is a glorious fantasy, built up by the word processor and recycled phrase after phrase. Even the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) used it with carefree irresponsibility. It is actually a reckless fantasy.
Unless something extraordinary is involved, the confused veteran will not find himself dealing with 17 Government Departments. However, it seems to be the

basis of the case that we need a co-ordinating Minister to help the poor, lost veteran wrestle with 17 Government Departments. That idea does not stand up to serious examination and that is one reason for being less than sympathetic to the call so persuasively made today.
I now take up the theme of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester—the philosophical point about how much separation there should be of ex-service men from other members of society, especially those who have also served in dangerous situations. The number of people who have served in the armed forces is diminishing as a proportion of the total population and will continue to do so as the size of the services is reduced. It is therefore all the more important to ensure that the services remain integrated with the rest of the community.
The results of cultural isolation, administrative isolation or special status would be bad for society and bad for the services themselves. For the Government to set up machinery to deal with veterans' matters quite separately could run the risk that none of us wants—that of helping to create a division between people with military connections and the remainder of society.
For that reason and for the practical reasons on which I have dwelt, I firmly believe that welfare provision for the ex-service community should continue to be integrated with that for the nation as a whole. That is not to say that we should not look for improvements. We should always wish to improve our administration, but not necessarily by creating a new tier of administration for service men and women—improvement and expansion are not the same thing.
Our door is open to the Royal British Legion and other service organisations for further discussions. We would welcome a dialogue with them about administrative improvements and how best to make them. Certainly, we would always want such improvements. We are all in favour of greater co-ordination and co-operation on service men's affairs within government. However, for the reasons that I have tried to outline I cannot share the touching faith of the hon. Member for Thurrock in the efficacy of appointing a special Minister. We would be in danger of entering Jim Hacker territory—we want more administration, therefore we want a special administration unit to administer what is already being administered. I do not think that a sub-Department of state or even only a designated Minister would add up to any meaningful progress or improvement.
In a rather charming phrase, the hon. Gentleman suddenly said, "The nature of this debate is bouncing ideas off one another, is it not?" We have had a morning and afternoon doing just that. It has been a good House of Commons occasion and some good ideas have been floated. I do not wish to sound wholly negative. We have listened carefully to several of the points that have been made from both sides of the House. We will think about what has been said. I am afraid that I cannot go as far as the motion or the hon. Gentleman suggest, but I am grateful for the debate and for the opportunity to reiterate our commitment to good administration and good government for our ex-service men and women.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, mindful of the increasing needs of the United Kingdom's ageing ex-service population and the many problems of younger members of the ex-service community in direct consequence of Options for Change, considers that there is now


a pressing need for a sub-Department of Ex-Service Affairs within an existing Ministry and with a designated Minister to be responsible, as the only fundamental and long-term solution for the care and welfare of ex-service people and their dependants; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government now to respond positively to the Royal British Legion's urgent call for a sub-department to be established.

Property Markets

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I beg to move,
That this House recognises that confidence within property markets and the construction industry is important to ensure sustained economic growth; considers that reforms of both the commercial and domestic property markets, and contractual arrangements within the construction industry, are essential to stimulate urban vitality and redevelopment; acknowledges the decision by the Lord Chancellor that reform of privity of contract is necessary; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to introduce early legislation to enact its policy on these matters.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) both on his good fortune in coming first in the ballot and on having had such an excellent debate at this important time when we commemorate the heroic deeds of 50 years ago. I am grateful to him for leaving sufficient time for me to introduce my motion. I am not sure whether there will be time for my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) to speak, but I shall be as brief as possible.
The motion originated from my interest in the issue of privity of contract, but it is drawn much wider than that. It embraces the importance of property markets and the construction industry. I am delighted to see the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment—my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry)—in his place. His work for the construction industry should be highly commended. Indeed, he has been described to me as the best Minister that the construction industry has ever had. I am not sure what will happen in the forthcoming reshuffle, but I hope that his very good work will be amply noted and that the importance of the construction industry within the Department of the Environment will continue to be given every priority.
In stressing the importance of markets, I was delighted this week to read a pamphlet by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) entitled "Civic Conservatism". In it, he stresses the importance of the markets, and I shall quote briefly from his brilliant exposition. He lucidly articulates the points that I had in mind in tabling my motion. The pamphlet states:
The tragedy of 20th Century Britain has been the way in which the state has taken over and then drained the life blood from a series of institutions which stood between the individual and the government.
It also says:
But equally we seem not to understand our own history and perpetually to fall a prey to the belief that we need our government to intervene to protect us from these dark, hostile, outside forces. As a result we are always on the lookout for the threat from market forces and are remarkably slow to see the greater danger posed for our civil society from the encroachment of the state.
It gives the following example:
If we move on to look at the 1950s we can see the national mood was extraordinarily sensitive to fears about the damage done by free markets and remarkably relaxed about the damage done by big government. The pundits feared that commercial television was going to threaten our national culture. Looking back we can see that it was the destruction of the old communities by the enormous new public sector housing estates, a bipartisan policy trusting to big government, which did far more damage.
The report refers to the work of Professor Alice Coleman, saying:
the desolation and alienation of an inner city estate is a direct consequence of the lack of clear property rights… The most powerful force for breaking down the barriers of discrimination


by sex or race or background is the market itself which will not want talents to go to waste.
It also describes how a ghetto can develop when
people with drive, exceptional ability, self-confidence take their chance and move out".
My hon. Friend has brilliantly expressed the feelings that I have about the importance of markets. It is the need always to refer to the working of the market and to make the market work as well as possible that I shall stress today.
Before going any further, I draw attention to and declare an interest not only in the construction industry, and the electrical contracting industry in particular, but in the fact that I introduced a Landlord and Tenant Bill in 1987.0 That 10-minute rule Bill was successful in achieving its twin objectives, which were to improve the workings of the right-to-buy scheme and to provide proper market compensation for landlords whose properties were compulsorily purchased. The late Nicholas Ridley, who was Secretary of State for the Environment at the time, was able to incorporate the measures in my Bill into later legislation.
The British Property Federation has described the commercial property markets as being 60 per cent. rented, and the need for reform has been highlighted by numerous people. From my own experience of business, I know that privity of contract can suddenly rear its head years later when no one is aware of the liability. Recently, it was described in a Library reference note as "the sting in the tail". Mr. Steven Fogel, a solicitor who has done considerable work in this area, says that it is a law which gets up and bites people:
The trouble with this law is that most people don't know about it or don't think about it until they get bitten. When it bites it usually bites hard.

Mr. Roy Thomason: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for giving way on that specific point. Does he agree that if the privity of contract rules were abolished it would be much more difficult for the assignment of leases to take place? Landlords would scrutinise more carefully potential new tenants who will be the only covenant on which they have to rely. Indeed, abolition of the rules might make it more difficult for people to come into leasehold businesses by virtue of having to climb a higher doorstep, as it were, in proving their creditworthiness to their landlords.

Mr. Thurnham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point and I shall come to that later.
It is the job of property developers to produce properties that people need, rather than ones that have to be forced down the throats of people who might not need them later. The proper working of the market will be improved if landlords look more to what future market needs will be.
Of course, only England and Wales have privity of contract. It does not apply in Scotland or in other countries in Europe and elsewhere, which seem to have well-developed and efficient property markets. Undoubtedly, it means that the courts will want to examine more carefully the strength of covenant for a following tenant. The Bill that I put forward would require the following tenant to be guaranteed by the first tenant if that is what the landlord requires, so there would be that degree of guarantee, but we would not have these nasty liabilities,

which cannot be estimated, popping up much later. The chairman of the Property Market Reform Group, Mr. K. Manns, described it as
a medieval law which has brought misery to thousands of families and small businesses, and its reform is long overdue.
There are other aspects of the property markets which also need reform and are the subject of a consultation exercise. Undoubtedly, my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to refer to the progress of that review. They include upwards-only rent reviews, which hardly seem to be what we want at a time when we are fighting inflation. They also include confidentiality clauses, which seem to go completely against the need for proper open markets, and there is a need for much better dispute resolution clauses.
I have had a considerable number of representations from many people about the need to reform the law of privity of contract. The Lord Chancellor has said that he wishes to see it reformed. The Law Reform Committee in 1988 made the first clear proposals, which included a retrospective element. The Lord Chancellor has not felt able to support that, but he has suggested a limit of nine months on the period during which a landlord can go back if he has delayed tracing a tenant on whom he intends to make demands. There have been dreadful cases in which demands have been made for long years before.
I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) to some of the dreadful abuses. An appalling scam came to light in May 1991. A tenant who was about to go bankrupt was induced by his landlord to sign a rent which was way above the true market rent. As he knew that he was about to go bankrupt, the tenant did not mind signing. He went bankrupt and was unable to pay. The landlord was then able to go back to all the previous tenants and force them to pay the rent way above the market value. When the case came to court, the judge was forced to find in favour of the landlord because of the state of the law. That was a clear abuse. It demonstrates as clearly as possible the need for reform.
The only people I know to have made representations in favour of keeping the law as it is are the representatives of the British Property Federation, and the Prudential Insurance Company. I believe that the British Property Federation accepts that there must be some reform. One hopes that it is looking properly to the competitiveness of Britain. The recent White Paper on competitiveness did not have a great deal to say about the construction industry, but the industry is obviously important, as it employs 1 million or more people. We need the property markets and the construction industry to work efficiently. At times I wonder whether the British Property Federation wants an inefficient construction industry to boost the value of its existing buildings, rather than one which might be able to produce buildings at a lower price.
Rather surprisingly, the Prudential Insurance Company said that it thought that reform of the law might put foreign investors off investing in Britain. As most foreign investors do not have such a law in their country, that would be surprising. The newspapers today show that the Prudential is a participant in a bid of more than £600 million for National Car Parks. It is putting in the equity. So it does not seem too worried about 25-year covenants when it comes to making its own investments.
I believe that the opposition from those elements of the industry is misplaced. If they look ahead, try to decide what property will be needed in future years and construct


properties in which they feel confident, they should not have to look to legal arrangements to ensure the value of their properties in the future.
The traders who occupy properties are in no position to judge what will be needed in 25 years. By the very nature of their businesses, they follow short-term trends in the market. They may be able to foresee their needs for relatively short periods ahead, but they will have no precise idea what their needs will be in 25 years. Traders are forced to take on a gamble. They take on a lease, gambling that they will be able to pass it on without anything bouncing back against them.
I have received letters from Sir Geoffrey Mulcahy, the chairman of Kingfisher, from the directors of Iceland Frozen Foods, from the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and from representatives of the Confederation of British Industry. Those organisations said that they would support reform. I have been amazed to read some of the comments of the chief executive of Boots, Sir James Blyth, who said at a property seminar reported on 27 May:
At present, the property industry bears analogy to the old, discredited economies of east Europe, where customers were provided with what the factories found most convenient to produce.
The property industry may have escaped scrutiny in the UK Department of Trade and Industry's white paper on competitiveness, but…it has no grounds for complacency.
At a time when the rest of the commercial world is becoming more flexible and responsive to customer needs, the property industry has become more rigid and uniform,.. The industry has allowed itself to be dominated by the needs of its finances, leading to a lack of flexibility and innovation in the leases it offers tenants.
He went on to say:
The possibility that the workings of the commercial property market damage the wider economy has been raised repeatedly over the past couple of years, by academics, businesses, lobby groups, the Bank of England and the government.
There seems to be ample evidence of the inadequacy of the existing law and the need to reform it. I have been much heartened by the support from both sides of the House. Early-day motion 1292, which I am sure that the Minister has seen, referring to the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Bill, has now been signed by 96 hon. Members, and I hope that there will be more than 100 names on it shortly.
It is significant that there has been no attempt to amend that early-day motion. I do not see any other hon. Members in the House today intending to speak against the measures in that Bill. So although the Bill has been blocked in earlier attempts to secure its Second Reading, those attempts represented a minority interest from the British Property Federation, which has been holding it up. I think that many members of the British Property Federation recognise the need to change the archaic law and it must be just a few diehards in that organisation who are holding up the matter.
A ten-minute Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) also touched on the subject earlier in the year. He too drew attention to the need for reforms. Obviously I shall be disappointed if my Bill does not manage to get through. Clearly it has become difficult to find time for it, but I hope that, if it is not successful, the Government will bring in a Bill in the next parliamentary Session and that that Bill will be as tough as the Government feel that it should be. The opponents of the Bill have had their moment to try to amend it. If they had wished to incorporate amendments in the Bill, I am sure that that would have been possible, but

they have lost that chance. I hope that the Government will bring in a strong Bill in the coming year, along the lines already indicated by the Lord Chancellor.
I have already mentioned the good work of my hon. Friend the Minister in relation to the construction industry and also the work done by the Electrical Contractors Association. I have had the honour to represent that excellent association in the House for some 10 years. It has 2,200 employer members and 50,000 employees, representing 80 per cent. of an industry which has a total output of £3.4 billion. The ECA has played a leading role in bringing together groups of specialist subcontractors—the specialist engineering contractors group and the constructors liaison group—bringing specialist interests together overall. My hon. Friend once described it as an alphabet soup, but we have been able to get through that stage to the point at which valuable work is being done.
I also praise the Minister for the work that he did in enabling the review of construction industry contractual arrangements to take place, under Sir Michael Latham. We are all very pleased with the progress made to date, including the interim report, and we expect the final report to come out in the next few days. I hope that there will be an opportunity for the House to debate the report before the recess. In any event, we look forward to an early Government response to the recommendations in Sir Michael Latham's report.
In preparing that report, I do not think that Sir Michael Latham has had time to see an interesting proposal which came to light the other day from Professor Colin New of the Cranfield school of management on the question of payment of late debts. That has always been a particular problem for specialist contractors in the construction industry.
I hope that the Minister may have had a chance to see the article that I sent through to his office earlier today, showing that the proposal suggests that any bill not paid within 30 days of the due date on the invoice would not count as a VAT input. That would have a remarkable effect on people's behaviour because no one would want to pay, in effect, a 17.5 per cent. tax for late payment. At the same time, the charge would not affect small firms which are below the VAT threshold. The proposal would therefore help many small firms and not hinder them in the way that other proposals to legislate against late payment run the risk of doing.
I ask the Minister to look at that new proposal, which I commend Professor New for making. I hope that it may suggest a way forward for resolving a long-standing source of discontent not only in the construction industry, but industry and commerce throughout the country, particularly small businesses.
Without taking up too much of the remaining time, I should like to comment briefly on one or two other points in the motion. On housing, my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that a pamphlet by me entitled "Choose your landlord" was published last year by the Conservative Political Centre. It pressed the case for private landlords to play a much larger role in the provision of housing, particularly in moving housing from local authority control into the private sector.
On 5 May 1993, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the Harry Simpson memorial lecture:
There's clearly a need for a larger private rented sector in Britain.
We all look forward to that. The latest figures, just released


by the Department of the Environment, show that an extra 250,000 homes have been privately let in the past five years, which suggests that the decades-long decline in the private rented sector is at last being reversed. That has been achieved by, in particular, the successful legislation that the Government introduced in 1988 to improve the workings of the domestic rental market.
If we can bring private landlords into the council estates, that will introduce an element of entrepreneurship and alter the way in which people think on those estates. I accept, however, that on 17 June my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Inner Cities and Construction said in a speech to the Chartered Institute of Housing:
Finding landlords to take on responsibility for a good proportion of the 4 million council stock would be a tall order.
We could make a lot of progress and set about changing some of the attitudes that my hon. Friend the Member for Havant described so well in his pamphlet by bringing market forces to bear properly in the council estates. We should not be afraid of doing that. We should look at it as a positive way in which to alter attitudes so that people on council estates can develop their own job opportunities and establish a wider range of contacts to help them to develop their own lives.
I do not know whether my hon. Friend will have time to comment further on the development of the housing market, but many people look to housing investment trusts as one way in which to attract new capital.
We cannot expect to make much progress in improving the private rented sector without giving some thought to how housing benefit should develop. My hon. Friend may know that I am working on a further pamphlet with Professor David Marsland to look at housing benefit more as an area entitlement rather than a personal entitlement.
I commend the motion to the House and I hope that there will be further opportunities to debate the points that I have put forward. I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Minister's response. Perhaps there will also be sufficient time for my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding to contribute to the debate, should he catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tony Baldry): I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) has introduced a timely debate on the property and construction industries. I thank him for his kind personal comments, which were much appreciated.
The provision of high-quality business and industrial premises is an essential prerequisite of a competitive economy. The property industry makes a substantial contribution to the general economy in terms of jobs and wealth creation. Property investments started to show recovery and improved performance in 1993. That has continued so far this year, with a considerable weight of funds competing for prime propositions in all sectors of the market—retail, office and industrial.
Demand is increasing, with a corresponding fall in vacancy rates. That fall reflects the strengthening and continuing recovery of the economy, with low inflation and low interest rates. I am told that, in some areas, levels of prime stock have fallen so far that developers are now dusting off their plans. A few property companies have

made encouraging starts in speculative development, including office developments in London and elsewhere and some retail and industrial warehouse projects.
As I go around the country from city to city—I was in Birmingham this week, Newcastle last week and shall be in Sheffield next week—I discover that the story is much the same: increasing confidence, strengthening recovery and continuing property investment are starting to take hold firmly. Bank loans outstanding to property companies have fallen significantly since their peak in May 1991. Confidence is improving and a number of banks are again looking carefully at property ventures—albeit, quite properly, selectively and on sensible loan-to-value ratios. The property industry can therefore regard the future with much greater optimism. Building on the substantial recent progress, there is every prospect of a sound, non-inflationary recovery in the commercial property sector.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East has made an interesting contribution on privity, a subject in which he has taken a considerable interest. As he made clear, that aspect of our law has concerned many people throughout the country, particularly those with small businesses.
Last year, my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor set out the Government's policy, which is that the Law Commission's recommendations contained in its report on privity should be implemented with two important changes: first, implementation should be limited to new rather than existing leases. I hope that that will go a considerable way towards reassuring those who are concerned that any reform that we make to the privity law may destabilise the market. We are considering only new contracts, so anyone entering a new contract would do so in the knowledge of the changes to the privity law.
The second new requirement applies to existing as well as new leases. A notice of arrears would be served on any former tenant from whom it is intended to recover funds within nine months of the sum in question becoming due. As my hon. Friend quite fairly made clear, one of the difficulties of the privity law is that people often do not know about its impact until they are served with a writ. Sometimes they do not know about it until long after they have signed the lease in question.
I hope that the two changes that we have announced to the Law Commission's recommendations are sensible. They have been taken in the light of what people had to say and should meet general agreement. It remains our intention to introduce further legislation in those terms as soon as a suitable legislative opportunity arises.
Should any hon. Member seek to create an opportunity by means of a private Member's Bill, we would consider carefully how far we could extend support for such a Bill, depending on the extent to which the Bill accorded with settled policy. As my hon. Friend said, he attempted to pilot such a Bill to give effect to the policy that I have outlined. The number of hon. Members' signatures on the early-day motion shows the widespread support from both sides of the House for his Bill.
Despite expressions of support for the principles of the Bill, however, it has been unable to make progress. I know that there are those who remain nervous about the possible effects on the property market of any change, despite our decision to limit the reforms to new leases. We are willing to consider and to listen to ideas on how the reforms might be improved, and I hope that a consensus can be achieved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East can be assured that, in due course, when legislative proposals are brought before Parliament, we will want to ensure that they meet the necessary requirements so that there is stability within the property market and a fair balance between landlords' needs and tenants' rights. That is what we are seeking to achieve.
I know that there has been much concern about issues relating to commercial leasing—notably, upward-only rent reviews, confidentiality clauses and dispute resolution procedures. That was why we issued a consultation paper last year. The subjects are complex, so it was not surprising that we received a considerable number of submissions and comments on our proposals. We in government have been giving careful consideration to the complex and difficult issues, and we want and hope to announce the outcome as soon as possible. We understand that the commercial property world is keen to hear of the outcome of the review.
The construction industry is vital to our economy, with which its health is inextricably entwined. The British construction industry's output is £45 billion to £50 billion a year. When taken together with the construction materials and products sectors, the construction industry is equivalent to about one tenth of the national gross domestic product, one third of the manufacturing output and 50 per cent. of fixed investment. The industry is very important, which is why every official and Minister in the Department of the Environment, which sponsors the construction industry, is determined to do everything possible to help it prosper and to influence events to ensure the greatest prosperity for the United Kingdom construction industry here and abroad.
For the past few months the construction industry has been enjoying a period of sustained growth, which is expected to settle at a rate of some 2 to 3 per cent. a year. In the past six months, there has been an increase in construction output. The value of new orders in the 12 months to April this year was 10 per cent. higher than a year earlier. We do not want a return to the sort of boom conditions of the late 1980s, because they often led to a subsequent bust. We want a pattern of steady and sustained growth. That has clearly begun to emerge to the benefit of the construction industry as a whole.
Following heavy cost cutting during the recession, the construction market remains highly competitive. British firms are well placed to compete abroad and are performing well abroad. Exports of building materials and components rose 13 per cent. at the end of last year, cutting the trade gap by 7 per cent. Trade in manufactured products and components is in the black for the first time in years, which is good news. With inflation at historically low levels, interest rates at a 22-year low, and GDP, manufacturing output and consumer spending showing sustained improvements, the general climate for United Kingdom construction continues to look excellent.
We in government will continue to do everything in our power and influence to assist the United Kingdom construction industry to take full advantage of the opportunities available here and overseas. Last year, together with the construction industry, we carried out a review of the Department of the Environment's sponsorship functions in the light of the challenges facing the industry as a result of the recession. We took account

of the widely held view that the construction industry needed to do more to try to improve its efficiency, quality and competitiveness.
One of the problems that we have had in the past has been liaising with the large number of representational organisations in the industry. My hon. Friend aptly described them as alphabet soup, which is how they often appear to Ministers and officials. There must be well over 100 trade associations and professional institutions, some of which represent quite small numbers of companies or people. We have had to cope with large numbers of ad hoc requests for meetings and visits that often overlap. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that, over the past couple of years, much progress has been made.
We now have three umbrella bodies which between them represent almost all the associations and institutions—the Construction Industry Council, the Construction Industry Employers Council, and the construction liaison group. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East had a positive hand in helping to set up the CLG. These umbrella bodies were a major help to us during our review of sponsorship. They are helping us to set up regular consultation arrangements, which represent a big improvement on the former ad hoc demands for meetings. I very much thank everyone involved for the constructive way in which they have worked together with the construction sponsorship directorate in the DOE.
The review concluded that we needed to improve information exchange with the industry and to put increased effort into promoting innovation and competitiveness. So our sponsorship functions were relaunched as the construction sponsorship directorate last September, with a determination to listen to the industry's concerns and views, to explain Government policies so that the industry is clear about our objectives, to act as the industry's advocate in Whitehall, in government and wherever else we may be needed at home and abroad, and to promote exports, innovation and productivity.
A large number of officials in the construction sponsorship directorate will spend time on attachment to the construction industry, so that they can understand as closely as possible the challenges facing the industry. I am also glad to say that the industry itself is starting to send an increasing number of secondees to work with us in the directorate. That will also enable us to understand the needs of industry better—and enable them to have a better appreciation of the machinery of government.
It is clear that a great deal of progress has been made since the launch of the construction sponsorship directorate. Ministers and officials are grateful for the plaudits for the directorate's work that have come from every quarter of the industry, as my hon. Friend noted. We find it both challenging and stimulating to work in close partnership with the industry, and Ministers and all the directorate's officials are determined to have the best possible working relationship with all parts of the construction industry.
We have set up arrangements for regular consultations. These include a twice-yearly state of the industry report, produced jointly by the Department and the industry. It forms the basis for discussions between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, Ministers and senior construction industry representatives. We were getting frustrated with the continuous debate about the exact state of the industry, often based on one or two statistics produced by one or two trade groups. Now we have an


agreed state of the industry report. There are also regular fortnightly briefing meetings on specific topics between the industry and me, enabling me to hear the industry's views at first hand.
We have also established a new consultative group for Government and industry, which meets regularly to discuss issues and concerns at official level. Finally, we are publishing a new monthly newsletter, entitled "Construction Monitor", which contains the latest European, United Kingdom and statistical information. It is distributed through Building magazine so as to reach the largest possible readership.
We have been working closely with the industry to ensure that we achieve what the United Kingdom wants on the European Union construction products directive. We have taken a number of other steps to improve our sponsorship activities. Last week I launched a new construction benchmarking challenge, which aims to promote innovation and best practice by encouraging construction industry trade associations and companies to co-operate in benchmarking schemes. An improved range of statistics is being produced to help industry decision makers, and a joint group has been established to advise my Department, so that the statistics we produce offer the industry the best possible advice.
We are promoting research and innovation in a number of ways. A whole industry strategy group has been set up to develop a joint strategy with the industry and to help ensure that resources are used as effectively as possible. The Department of the Environment is spending £25 million a year on construction research, of which £5 million is allocated to collaborative projects funded jointly with the industry. In every aspect, we are seeking to ensure that the industry is as competitive as possible.
My hon. Friend mentioned the industry's important concern that its competitiveness has been undermined by conflict within the industry. That is one reason why we established the Latham review, ably chaired by our former colleague, Sir Michael Latham, which is due to report later this month. As my hon. Friend said, the interim report is extremely encouraging. I have no doubt that the Latham

report will have much to say to us in government, in our role as procurers of construction services, and to the industry. We shall certainly want to respond as positively as possible to what is said by Sir Michael and his team of assessors. All in the industry keenly look forward to the report's publication.
The industry is concerned not only about conflict but about late payment. My hon. Friend specifically drew attention to a proposal to withhold value added tax refunds to penalise late payers. Withholding VAT refunds due to those who delay payments to other companies, and particularly to small firms, is an ingenious and worthy attempt to right a wrong. However, it has the sort of disadvantages that exist with other legislative solutions.
It would inevitably place a greater administrative burden on firms, which might be disproportionate for those most affected—that is, small companies—and would require considerable policing and investigatory resources. It would also be a new development in using taxation policy as a punitive measure in commercial relationships. I have no doubt that Sir Michael will comment on that issue. The recent excellent White Paper on competitiveness made a number of positive recommendations that will help to deal with late payment and should encourage prompt payment.
I hope that I have demonstrated the importance that the Government attach to the property and construction industries; that the Government acknowledge the significance of those industries' contribution to the economy; and that the Government have a clear commitment to fostering, developing and promoting effective working relationships with the construction industry, to help improve its efficiency and competitive edge and to ensure that it is the best in the world.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House recognises that confidence within property markets and the construction industry is important to ensure sustained economic growth; considers that reforms of both the commercial and domestic property markets, and contractual arrangements within the construction industry, are essential to stimulate urban vitality and redevelopment; acknowledges the decision by the Lord Chancellor that reform of privity of contract is necessary; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to introduce early legislation to enact its policy on these matters.

Deepings and Stamford Bypasses

Mr. Quentin Davies: I beg to move,
That this House recognises the widespread support for the long-awaited bypasses for Deepings and Stamford in South Lincolnshire; notes that these roads would result in fewer casualties in road accidents and reduced noise and other pollution in residential areas; looks forward to the improvements to the quality of life for residents of Deepings and Stamford that would be brought about by these roads; believes that these bypasses are essential if the economic growth of South Lincolnshire is to be maintained; considers that it is in the national interest that the great historic and architectural heritage of Stamford, the first conservation area in the United Kingdom, is preserved and protected from the blight and depredations of heavy through traffic; supports the case for the urgent imposition of a weight restriction on vehicles traversing Stamford's ancient town bridge; and urges that the Highways Agency should give both bypass schemes the highest priority.
I am grateful for the opportunity to move the motion and to raise the issue of Deepings and Stamford bypasses, the related issue of weight restrictions on Stamford bridge, and the wider issue of roads in south Lincolnshire.
The inadequacy of our roads for the burdens placed on them is far and away the greatest and most sensitive local issue in south Lincolnshire, and has been for years. One peculiarity of south Lincolnshire is that, since the invention of the motor car, only one new road has been constructed—the A1, in the 1960s. Another road, the Spalding bypass, is under construction, but the lack of provision of road infrastructure contrasts sharply with most parts of the country, whether the south-east, the north, Scotland or elsewhere.
The consequence is that south Lincolnshire's roads are woefully inadequate for the needs of the time. Traffic is constantly stalled in jams, and small towns and villages are bearing a burden of constant, heavy through traffic throughout the day, which it is unreasonable to expect local people to bear. There is also a great problem with pollution and noise in residential areas. Businesses tell me that they are frequently deterred from investing in what is otherwise a most attractive part of the world because of the inadequacy of road communications and the time that it takes for a lorry to get to a workshop or plant.
Worst of all, of course, is the human problem of accidents. There have been some very bad accidents recently, a number of them involving children. Children have been killed. In the past few days there has been a very sad accident in Deepings involving a small girl; fortunately she was not killed, but a constituent from whom I received a letter yesterday wrote that the thud of the poor child's head on the windscreen of the car that hit her was a sound that she hoped never to hear again. It is strongly felt that we should have the new roads that have been so woefully lacking.
I was greatly encouraged when, following a number of conversations between myself and Lord Parkinson—then Secretary of State for Transport—provision was made in the 1988 Government road programme for a Stamford bypass relief road and a Deepings bypass. Subsequently, the plan for a Stamford bypass was set aside pending decisions on the upgrading of the A1 to motorway status, and no progress has been made over the past four of five years. That was very disappointing. Next came a bolt from the blue, which caused enormous consternation in

Stamford: the bypass was simply taken out of the Government's road programme when it was revised in March this year.
As for Deepings, it has been waiting for a bypass since the 1930s; I believe that the initial plans date from 1931. Again, it was greatly encouraging when the bypass was included in the 1988 Government road programme, and construction was expected to start this year. There was just as much consternation, therefore, when it was decided not to exclude the bypass from the road programme altogether but to place it in category 3 of the Highway Agency's new priority system.
My hon. Friend the Minister, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), has been extremely sympathetic to the many representations that I have made to him, and visited both Stamford and Deepings a few weeks ago—visits that were greatly appreciated by local residents. He has been able to reassure me on a number of matters in the past few days, for which I am deeply grateful. I told him that, because of the short time available and the assurances that he had already given me, the last thing I wanted was for him to spend the morning here when he had urgent business elsewhere.
My hon. Friend has assured me that he will issue orders to place a weight restriction on Stamford bridge, the ancient bridge—Stamford's only one—that runs through the centre of that historic town. Such action will immediately provide some welcome relief. My hon. Friend has given me an undertaking that the possibility of returning the Stamford bypass to the Government road programme, with a view to relatively rapid construction, will be considered at the next opportunity—at the beginning of next year.
I have also heard from my hon. Friend's officials that they are urgently considering—on his direct instructions—the possibility of giving the Deepings bypass a measure of priority. That, I think, is considered thoroughly warranted by everyone in south Lincolnshire and, indeed, every expert who has viewed the situation from outside.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on a matter that remains extremely pertinent, and for the understanding and support of the Minister and his officials.

Mr. Alan Duncan: My constituency contains a few streets on the very edge of Stamford. It will come as no surprise that my constituents, too, have not been slow in writing to me about the problems that they encounter, such as congestion, when driving into Stamford. However, I am happy to play second fiddle to my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies)—not just because most of the problems that beset us are more in his constituency than mine, but because the manner in which he has taken up the issue on behalf of his constituents provides a case study of how it should be done. Any student of parliamentary behaviour should study the manner in which he has represented his constituents, which is an example of how a case can be brought to Ministers' attention and action taken.
I have enough problems in my constituency in trying to get the Oakham bypass, but my hon. Friend's constituents and mine will be pleased to hear the news that my hon. Friend gave the House of the very good prospect of placing proper weight restrictions on the streets through Stamford.

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — Private Members' Bills

RACIAL HATRED AND VIOLENCE BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [11 March].

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate further adjourned till Friday 8 July.

FAIR TREATMENT FOR WIDOWERS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 8 July.

NURSERY EDUCATION (ASSESSMENT OF NEED) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [18 February].

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate further adjourned till Friday 15 July.

PARDON FOR SOLDIERS OF THE GREAT WAR BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 8 July.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (COVENANTS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 15 July.

CIVIL RIGHTS (DISABLED PERSONS) BILL

Order read for further consideration (as amended in the Standing Committee).

Hon. Members: Object.

To be further considered upon Monday 4 July.

SPORTS (DISCRIMINATION) BILL

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

WATER (DOMESTIC DISCONNECTIONS) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [25 February].

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate further adjourned till Friday 8 July.

PUBLIC CONVENIENCES (NO. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 8 July.

CONSOLIDATION, &C., BILLS

Motion made, and Question put,
That, in respect of the Value Added Tax Bill [Lords] and the Vehicle Excise and Registration Bill [Lords], notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bills have been read a second time.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Hon Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — Disabled People (Mobility)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Mr. Alfred Morris: This debate is about the urgency of the need to end a specific, blatant and now totally indefensible injustice to people—children and adults alike—who are among the most severely disabled in Britain today. What they seek, but cannot achieve without the help of this House, is every other citizen's undoubted right to independent personal mobility—the freedom to go beyond their own front doors.
With backing from the Muscular Dystrophy Group of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and from more than 100 other voluntary organisations, I have tabled an early-day motion in the following terms:
That this House calls urgently for the provision of indoor/outdoor powered wheelchairs to all permanently disabled adults and children requiring them for independent mobility, in accordance with recommendations made by the DSS Working Party chaired by Professor (now Lord) Ian McColl in 1986.
Judging from the strong and immediate all-party response that my motion received, the subject is one of urgent concern to right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. More importantly, though, the motion is of paramount concern to thousands of severely disabled people who see themselves as victims of state-sanctioned discrimination. That is the only way properly to describe the failure to fund occupier-controlled, electrically powered, indoor-outdoor wheelchairs for disabled people, who are forced to stay trapped in their own homes without them.
It is estimated that at present there are approximately half a million permanently disabled adults and children in the United Kingdom who require a wheelchair of one kind or another for basic mobility. The state provides wheelchairs free of charge, and without any means testing, for the vast majority of them. This creates the presumption that the state acknowledges a duty to provide the means of independent mobility for all its disabled citizens. But for a significant proportion of permanently disabled people—as many as 40,000 to 50,000 children and adults according to the latest study—the range of chairs commonly available fails to meet their needs. Their disabilities are of such severity that they simply do not have the upper body strength to self-propel the manual wheelchair the state will provide, and the indoor electric-powered wheelchair, which can also be obtained free of charge, is simply not powerful enough to take them across the thresholds of their own homes and allow them to live their lives in the way that millions of other citizens can do, as of right, each and every day.
They never go beyond their own four walls independently, unless they can raise enough money to buy chairs themselves and that is seldom easy for people, so many of whom are locked in the benefits system and unable to work because they cannot get to work. The only other way for them to achieve independent personal mobility is to face what many of them see as the indignity of seeking help from charities. They seek the help of charities like the Muscular Dystrophy Group, whose recently launched "Batteries Not Included" campaign to secure mandatory state funding for indoor-outdoor powered wheelchairs has placed new emphasis on this injustice.
When, in 1986, the working party chaired by Professor, now Lord, Ian McColl made its recommendations, it seemed that at last the inequity of a system that gave no help to those most in need would be finally swept away. McColl clearly recommended that indoor-outdoor powered wheelchairs should be made available through the state system. His report was unequivocal in claiming that the sole reason for continuing to deny access to these chairs was "financial". He condemned this as blinkered and flawed because it took no account of the invisible economic effects of fully empowering disabled people to contribute to the economy on the basis of equal opportunities.
The report envisaged a sound and common-sense policy of turning more and more tax users into taxpayers. It was a report, then, that called in compelling terms for a complete overhaul of a system that was outdated, financially near-sighted and a betrayal of those most in need. Yet eight years on there has been no change in the wheelchair service in England and Wales. Indeed, the dismantling of the old network of artificial limb and appliance centres—ALACs—and their replacement by a devolved system of administration by individual district health authorities has resulted in still more glaring anomalies, inconsistencies and inequities.
The Minister may say that it is now for local health authorities and trusts, and them alone, to decide whether to supply indoor-outdoor powered wheelchairs, but most other people will insist that the Government cannot simply wash their hands of a problem that is so crucial to the most needful of severely disabled people. They demand an act of leadership from Richmond house.
As the Minister must know, the fact that a few isolated authorities in England and Wales offer limited funding for the wheelchairs we seek only heightens the mounting sense of frustration and anger felt by severely disabled people who live in adjacent authorities where no such option is available.
The case of Wesley Maynard of Dorset, who has just emerged from a two-year period of isolation, tells the story in human terms. The increasingly debilitating nature of the form of muscular dystrophy which affects him meant that he could no longer operate a manual wheelchair. The state was not prepared to offer a powered alternative which would take him out of his home. Not only was Wesley's life cruelly restricted by his immobility, but his children's lives were, too. In Wesley's own words:
It's not fair on the boys. At weekends we should be out and about, having fun together. The beach is only a mile away, but it may as well be a hundred miles for all we'll see of it.
Fortunately, Wesley's story has a happy ending. Recently, thanks to grants from the Muscular Dystrophy Group and a number of local fund-raising organisations, he finally received the necessary funds to purchase an indoor-outdoor powered wheelchair.
The Muscular Dystrophy Group's files are full of similar stories of people whose lives have been completely transformed by the acquisition of indoor-outdoor wheelchairs. The charity's excellent report into the wheelchair service contains testimony from many individuals as to the dramatic effect of having an indoor-outdoor chair on their quality of life.
Richard Plummer, from West Brompton in London, says:


The chair has completely transformed my life. The ability to go out, when and wherever I want, is a new experience for me".
Michelle Howard from Swindon says:
When I got into my wheelchair, I realised what freedom meant. It was like having my legs back; in fact it was better than my legs—my legs working without the rest of me would be useless.
Finally, and most succinctly, the words of Andrew Doddington, a 13-year-old from Norwich who has muscular dystrophy, who simply declares:
My wheels are my freedom.
Yet for every story of freedom achieved, there are others of freedom denied. Again, the Muscular Dystrophy Group's own files are full of examples. Catherine Alexander, for example, is a bright and inquisitive four-year-old from the Wirral. At present her mobility is severely limited. When it comes to exploring the world around her she is dependent upon others and reliant upon a pushchair she has now outgrown.
Mark Thorpe is a 32-year-old from Harwich, whose current powered chair, paid for by voluntary sources, is now eight years old and totally unreliable. Mark recalls the period before he got his first powered chair as one of isolation and despair. Quite rightly, he dreads the imminent prospect of being trapped in his home again and reliant on others for basic mobility.
The list goes on and on. Indeed, since 1986 the Muscular Dystrophy Group alone has provided grants for powered wheelchairs to well over 1,000 adults and children, representing an investment in excess of £2 million. That money had to be diverted from the charity's primary objective, which is the funding of vitally important research into the cause and potential treatment of this debilitating and harrowing condition. Many severely disabled people take on the arduous and often hopeless task of raising funds themselves. They write letter after letter to local and national trusts and charities, waiting for the reply to fall through their door that might prove the financial key to opening it for them.
On both sides of the House, their plight is seen as shaming our society. How can it possibly be right to perpetuate a system under which, in proportion to individual need, the more disabled one is, the less help one receives? It is a system that piles handicap on handicap, leaving disabled people doubly disabled, and is morally unacceptable.
Again, is it right that a child in my Manchester constituency must remain isolated and dependent upon others for basic mobility when his exact counterpart in Motherwell, where state funding for indoor-outdoor wheelchairs has already been agreed, enjoys full independence as of right?
Why is individual need less important than where one lives in determining eligibility for help? As the Minister knows, that has been the case since 1992, when the Scottish Office made ring-fenced funding available for indoor-outdoor powered wheelchairs.
The Scottish experience provides the one glimmer of hope in this whole shaming and scandalous affair. Far from demonstrating that funding for indoor-outdoor powered wheelchairs would prove administratively and financially too difficult to contemplate in the rest of the United Kingdom, in fact it clearly demonstrates the opposite. The state-financed system now operating in Scotland has proved wholly viable. The Scottish scheme also

contradicts the only argument ever offered in defence of current policy south of the border that to make funding available for indoor-outdoor powered wheelchairs would open the floodgates to new applicants on a scale that would be financially prohibitive.
Indeed, a recent memorandum from the Scottish Office makes it clear that the Secretary of State now accepts that current eligibility criteria are too narrowly drawn. The memorandum recommends a relaxation in the criteria now operating in Scotland, with no mention of any fear of being deluged by new applicants.
For the period 1994–95, the sum of £1.2 million has been set aside in Scotland for the specific purpose of providing indoor-outdoor wheelchairs—a sum which is obviously proving more than ample to meet current applicants' needs. Simple arithmetic, multiplying the figure of £1.2 million in proportion to population statistics for the United Kingdom as a whole, produces a national annual figure of just £12.25 million to extend the system to the rest of Great Britain.
This is wildly at variance with the Government's own figures. As long ago as 1986, the McColl report called for a budget of £30 million for national funding of indoor-outdoor wheelchairs, but that figure, in the light of Scottish experience, now seems to have been cautiously high.
Just £12.25 million is surely a small price to pay to secure full rights of citizenship, freedom of mobility and economic liberation for the severely disabled people whom this debate is seeking to help.
I take pride in being associated with the Muscular Dystrophy Group and the other 100 organisations which are collectively mounting the "Batteries Not Included" campaign, with most of which I have been associated for more than 25 years. On their behalf, and for the thousands of needful people whose lives can be transformed, I now most strongly urge the Government both to acknowledge, once and for all, the state's duty to guarantee independent personal mobility for all its disabled citizens, and to end the now plainly indefensible policy of overt discrimination.
In the introduction to "Batteries Not Included"—the report which inspired this debate—my noble Friend Lord Attenborough of Richmond-upon-Thames, the Muscular Dystrophy Group's president, states:
Independent mobility is not the privilege of the able-bodied or of those with the necessary financial means. It is a fundamental right—and a duty lies with society as a whole to ensure that this right is available to all.
Establishing a system to provide indoor/outdoor wheelchairs would cost so little and buy so much. All that is lacking is a strong voice calling for change and the political will to make that change.
There are now many thousands of very strong, very insistent voices calling for change. Is it not about time that we in this House heeded their call by summoning the political will to make that change?
The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) shared many debates with me before he became a Minister—we were invariably on the same side—and he has shown his humanity on many occasions in the House. I hope very much that he will be able to offer a positive reply today—one that will give some hope to people who so very urgently need our help.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) for his final words and I am grateful for the opportunity to answer the debate. The House is well aware of the right hon. Gentleman's tireless campaigning over the years on behalf of people with disabilities. As he says, I too have been involved in many campaigns, often alongside him. So I welcome this opportunity to share some thoughts with him on the points that he aired today.
There are a number of ways in which people with disabilities can receive help with their mobility. The benefits system provides a mobility component in the disabled living allowance. People can use this to meet their own needs for getting around, or may put it towards the lease or purchase of a car, or, if they are on the higher level of mobility component, towards the purchase of indoor-outdoor powered wheelchairs under the Motability scheme. In addition, the Department of Employment has power to award money to resolve mobility problems so that a disabled person can start work. Access standards for new non-domestic buildings also play their part in increasing mobility.
Clearly no description of the cross-sector aspects of mobility would be complete without mention of public transport. A number of initiatives are currently in progress covering buses, air travel, taxis and the pedestrian environment. Perhaps I can underscore that last point. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I have been involved with people in wheelchairs and people who have visual impairment, so I know how difficult life can be as a result of poor planning and thoughtless practices. Dark-painted lamp posts at irregular intervals do not help. Shop goods spilling over on to the pavements, cars and bicycles parked on kerbs or across ramps, and tools and workings left unguarded can all be lethal. It does not take Governments to get these right; it takes all of us to think, and to think disability.
Accessible transport within a barrier-free pedestrian environment should address the needs of all the population with mobility difficulties, without, of course, focusing on any one group to the exclusion or detriment of others. The Department of Transport is given valuable support in pursuing developments in this area by the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. The committee was set up under the Transport Act 1985 to advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on the transport needs of people with disabilities. People with disabilities make up the majority on the committee and cover the whole spectrum of disability needs. They bring together a wealth of experience and expertise in transport matters.
"Co-ordination" is a word that is increasingly used in the context of accessible transport, and it is an area in which I think there is enormous scope for further development. Many local and health authorities are now beginning to realise the value of pooling accessible transport resources so that statutory transport provision, for example, to day centres, hospital appointments, special schools and so on, can be combined with other sorts of door-to-door transport services either using community transport or dial-a-ride vehicles, or using local taxi services where they have suitable, or suitably modified, vehicles.
Many would regard my responsibility in the area as the most basic and important to the mobility of many disabled

people. I am responsible for the wheelchair service. The service has a proud history. It has grown from issuing some 76,000 wheelchairs in 1979 to issuing 170,000 last year.
For many years, the artificial limb and appliance service was run centrally. In 1986, the McColl report of the committee chaired by my noble Friend Lord McColl reviewed the service and proposed sweeping changes in the way it was run. As a result, responsibility for artificial limbs and wheelchairs was transferred to the Disablement Services Authority from 1 July 1987. The main function of the Disablement Services Authority was to prepare the service for integration within the national health service, which took place in April 1991.
Following integration, as the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe said, the money to be spent on disablement services was earmarked to ensure that it was not put to other uses, and to accustom the NHS to running the service. When that arrangement ceased on 1 April 1993, the NHS became entirely responsible for running the service.
The result of the changes is to integrate provision of wheelchairs with other services for disabled people so that local health authorities and disablement services centres can ensure that the health needs of their populations are met. They are closest to the people they serve and so are best placed to respond sensitively to their needs. Choice is improved, as disablement services centres may buy any wheelchair on the market within their overall budget.
Since devolution of responsibility, each health authority has made its own arrangements for the service. Generally, people who need a wheelchair are referred by their GP or consultant to a local disablement services centre. That centre is contracted to provide the person with a suitable wheelchair. Therapists at the centre prescribe the appropriate chair from a range of types on NHS contract, from a manual chair at £130 to a powered indoor chair costing £750. Alternatively, of course, they can order on the open market what is required. When necessary, special seating and attachments are also provided. Chairs are maintained under local agreements and the disabled person pays nothing for the service.
Powered indoor chairs are provided for severely disabled people, who normally live alone, to help them move about their home. Powered chairs that can operate both indoors and outdoors are more versatile and, of course, more expensive, at about £2,500 and ranging up to £20,000. As with standard wheelchair provision, health authorities have to decide whether to issue them in the light of local priorities and resources, and a few have allocated funding specifically for the purpose.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the provision in Scotland is different, as it is with a number of services. In England, we have taken the view that local units are best placed to meet the needs of local people, as in other areas of health and social care provision. The changes in Scotland are recent and I shall watch them with interest and watch the progress of their three-year programme very carefully.
For the future, we expect the demand for wheelchairs to rise. In 1978–79, almost 270,000 were in use. Recent figures show that well over 500,000 wheelchairs are now in use. The current cost of the wheelchair service is nearly £40 million a year. The House will realise from that that there have been many improvements and changes in the organisation of that service over the past few years. I am


keeping the new arrangements under scrutiny to ensure that our aims—to improve the service and make it more responsive—are achieved.
We have received a number of suggestions for fuller development of wheelchair provision over the years, including, for example, the introduction of a voucher scheme. Under such a scheme, disabled people would be able to use a voucher to the value of their NHS provision and top that up, if they so wished, with or without help from family, friends or charitable organisations, to purchase a more expensive wheelchair. That scheme has attractions, especially to disabled people who are active, able to look after themselves and not otherwise ill. There are, of course, a number of practical considerations to be worked through and we would need to be sure that costs would not be prohibitive.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be encouraged to learn that, as a result of correspondence I have had with my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth), I have today asked the Department to look afresh at the issue, so that I can decide whether a scheme would be affordable and to the benefit of users generally. I am setting up a departmental working group to look at all aspects of such a scheme and to take evidence from experts. That will report to me by the end of October.
I should also like to draw the attention of the House to a report which was launched recently on the subject of cross-sector benefits—the indirect benefits which accrue from the provision of independent mobility and accessible transport. The report, carried out by Cranfield university and funded by the Rowntree Trust, draws attention to the

costs which accrue, for example, to the health service and to social services when they have to provide services to overcome a lack of mobility.
One example is the cost of a doctor leaving his or her surgery to attend a patient at home because that patient has no means of independent transport. That is costly. The economics of the issue is not straightforward or easy to tackle, but I am pleased to say that the Department of Transport will be setting up a joint working group with other relevant Departments to explore some of the issues and the implications that it has for long-term funding.
Helping people become more mobile spans the policy interests of a number of Government Departments and carries benefit not only for disabled people themselves, but for society as a whole. Mobility is essential if disabled people are to realise their potential and contribute to the social and economic fabric of the communities in which they live and work.
The right hon. Gentleman is impatient for change, and he is right to be. No change comes from passive waiting. I can tell him that I am an impatient Minister. I, too, want change for the better for people with disabilities, and I want it to have happened yesterday. I know, as he knows, that we can only achieve so much at a time and that we can only afford so much at a time. Many priorities for action and spending compete with each other. Nevertheless, step by step, we are making progress. We must not raise hopes that cannot be fulfilled, but we can and we do set our sights on the horizon as we strive together to enable people with disabilities to live life to the fullest possible extent and to be full members of our society.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Three o'clock.